►
From YouTube: 2021-06-22 meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Oh
that
I
just
realized,
like
allen,
had
gone
on
a
vacation,
so
he
won't
join.
B
Victory
is
also
gone
so,
but
still,
let's
wait.
Another
two.
B
A
A
B
Hello,
can
you
hear
I
can
hear
everything?
Oh
okay,
thank
you.
Had
some
like
issue
with
zoom
link,
okay,
yeah.
We
can
start
now
so
we'll
first
go
through
the.
Let
me
see
if
there
is
anything
added.
No,
so
I'll
just
go
through
the
items
which
I
have
put
here
so
I'll
start
with
a
few
action
items
from
last
week,
so
we
had
a
issue
with
readme
badge
being
read
all
the
time,
so
that's
fixed
just
a
minor
update
and
we
also
agreed
to
do
a
validation
that
the
metric
exporter
is
usable.
B
So
I
did
a
basic
console,
exporter
and
ellen.
I
will
be
working
on
the
otlp
one.
He
already
started
a
draft
pr.
He
will
continue
to
work
on
it
next
week
when
he's
back
from
vacation,
but
it's
not
ready
for
real
conception.
So
I
think
I
will
delay
the
first
release
of
matrix
by
another
week,
as
mentioned
like
somewhere
later,
so
these
were
just
follow-ups
from
last
item
last
week,
so
we
will
come
back
to
I
mean
we'll
go
to
the
next
topics.
Now.
B
Okay,
so
this
is
just
an
update
which
the
dot
net
one
time
team
has
shared.
They
are
working
to
include
a
propagators
api
as
part
of
the
diagnostic
source
package,
just
a
very
good
move,
because
propagators
is
one
of
the
thing
which
does
not
provide
and
that's
one
reason
why
people
are
forced
to
take
an
open,
elementary
dependency,
so
they're
trying
to
address
it,
and
I
don't
have
a
design
proposal
yet,
but
there
is
a
draft
vr
in
the
dot
net
runtime
repo.
B
B
But
of
course,
once
the
dotnet
review
design
review
is
going
on
it's
completed,
there
might
be
some
name
changes
I'll
share
the
link
once
I
get
it
okay-
and
this
is
something
which
we
briefly
covered
last
week
about
adding
api
compact.
B
We
added
it
and
right
now
the
I
mean
there
was
one
mentioned
here
that
there's
a
new
package
which
struck
a
team
is
bringing
up.
It
looks
like
that
package
and
its
documentation
is
append
live
as
of
today,
so
we
basically
need
like
someone
to
spend
some
time,
modify
the
the
current
pr
or
current
ca
to
switch
over
to
the
new
one,
because
the
one
which
we
currently
use
has
some
issues.
So
if
there
are
any
takers,
please
raise
your
hands
now,
otherwise
I'll
ask
in
the
slack
channel.
B
It
should
be
like
fairly
straightforward,
because
the
team
has
blogged
about
it
and
how
to
use
it.
This
is
something
which
we
consider
as
a
blocker
for
1.0
like
yeah,
because
we
want
to
make
sure
sorry,
1.1
1.1
has
no
breaking
changes
since
1.0,
because
it's
the
first
time
we'll
ever
be
facing
the
breaking
change
issue,
because
we
never
released
any
stable
apart
from
1.0.
B
Okay,
brief
update
on
the
1.1
release.
We
haven't
released
beta
4,
which
was
supposed
to
be
released
yesterday,
as
per
the
original
improv
milestone,
shared
so
I'll
push
it
by
another
week,
because
I
still
need
to
see
if
we
have
a
way
to
move
it
into
the
api.
So
there
is
a
pr.
Oh,
it
looks
like
michael
is
already
here,
so
we
we
can
discuss
a
few
minutes
about
it
once
I
come
back
so
since
the
beta
4
is
delayed,
that
will
naturally
push
the
1.1
release.
B
Similarly,
so
I
mark
the
milestones
accordingly,
I
think
it's
pushed
to
just
a
week,
so
we
should
have
the
beta
4
in
28
and
1.1
in
july.
9,
considering
there
is
a
long
weekend
in
the
us,
so
pushed
it
to
july
9
instead
of
july.
7Th.
B
Okay,
like
similarly
like
the
matrix
preview,
would
also
be
pushed
back
by
at
least
a
week
and
regarding
metrics
yeah
victor
asked
me
to
letting
when
everyone
know
that
we
have
a
draft
pr
for
including
views
and
the
spec
for
we
use
still
being
like
discussed
in
the
matrix
sake.
So
we
are
just
trying
to
be
like
one
step
ahead
of
the
spec
trying
to
even
help
the
spec
process.
So
if
you
have
cycles,
please
go
and
look
at
the
bpr.
B
Just
a
small
update,
the
targeting
of
six
source
preview
for
five
is
out
as
of
last
week,
which
is
the
first
version
containing
the
new
matrix
api.
So
if
you
want,
you
can
take
a
look
use,
it
share
any
feedback
with
dot
net
team
or
in
fact,
open
telemetry
because
simply
follow
the
open.
Elementary
naming
assess
no
other
topics.
I
want
to
discuss
with
michael
about
the
deferred
tracer
builder,
but
before
that
any
other
question
I
can
see
a
new
name.
B
Luis
is
that
do
you
want
to
just
say
hi
to
the
crew?
It
looks
like
you
are
joining
for
the
first
time.
D
Yeah
yeah,
hello,
everyone.
My
name
is
luis,
I'm
from
brazil
and
I
work
in
a
company
that
has
different
products
in
the
civil
construction
retail
area.
We
have
a
marketplace:
b2b,
a
btc
marketplace
and
a
loyalty
program
and
I'm
an
enthusiast
of
distributing
tracing
and
I
want
to
contribute
with
their
community.
But
I
I've
read
the
specification.
The
contribution
file
and
I've
joined
the
hotel
slack
channel
recently,
but
I
didn't
introduce
it
myself.
There.
E
B
Okay,
like
are
you
primarily
focused
on
dot
net
or
dot
net,
is
just
like
one
of
the
languages
which
you
are
interested.
D
Yeah
yeah,
I
I
I
work
with
dot
net
and
I'm
I'm
learning
also
golang
and
but
I
I'm
all
my
stack
is:
is
the
microsoft
stack
and
I
work
with
azure
and
and
dutchnet.net
core?
I
I
I
and
that
that's
my
my
stack.
I
think
yeah.
B
Okay,
yeah
so
welcome
to
the
community.
If
you
are
looking
for
like
some
like
issues
to
take
up
on
either
you
can
explore
yourself.
I
think
we
marked
a
lot
of
issues
with
help
wandered
and
we
also
have
marked
several
issues
with
good
first
item.
B
I
just
need
to
see
whether
they
are
like
still
up
to
date,
because
we
might
have
closed
some
of
them.
You
can
just
take
a
look
at
the
open
issue,
see
if
there
is
anything
which
you
want
to
like
tackle
or
like
you
can
ask
in
the
slack
channel
either
I
can't
respond,
or
there
are
like
many
people
who
wear
like
just
like
you,
like
few
months
back
and
now
have
become
a
big
time
contributor.
B
So
there
should
be
like
plenty
of
help
for
you
and
also
like
just
make
sure
you
use
the
dogs
to
really
try
it
out
first
yourself
to
see
just
to
get
a
feel
of
it
before
you
start
contributing.
B
C
B
So
most
of
the
like
folks
would
be
at
least
from
I'm
from
microsoft
and
like
one
of
the
commitments
which
we
have
is
to
release
the
matrix
one
and
my
manager
riley
he's
working
with
the
metric
specification
to
bring
out
the
spec
in
good
shape
by
end
of
this
month
and
stabilize
it
by
end
of
this
year,
and
the
tottenham
team
within
microsoft
is
also
committed
to
ship
dot
net
matrix
api,
the
open
elementary
one
as
part
of
the
dot
net
itself.
B
So
this
sig,
the
folks
who
joined
this
meeting,
are
mostly
trying
to
ship
the
sdk
part
of
matrix
because
the
specs
are
handled
elsewhere.
Apis
handle
its
figure.
So
that's
the
key
focus,
but
we
still
have
like
traces
and
logs
in
our
mind.
That's
also.
B
We
have
like
open
issues
in
pretty
much
all
the
areas,
so
we
should
be
able
to
give
you
tasks
if
you're
interested
okay,
so
that
is
end
of
all
the
topics
so
I'll
just
see.
If
we
have
time
to
discuss
the
default
tracer
printer,
hey
michael,
I
did
send
you
a
message
in
slack
few
minutes
earlier,
not
sure
if
you
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it.
E
B
Yeah,
so
just
to
for
the
sake
of
everyone
else,
like
I'm,
just
repeating
the
issue,
probably
the
third
time,
I'm
repeating,
but
this
seems
like
a
little
bit
non-trivial.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
we
let
everyone
know
like.
Why
is
this?
Seemingly
small
issue
is
delaying
our
releases,
so
michael
introduced
a
feature
in
1.1
beta
where
he
introduced
a
thing
called.
I
defer
tracer
provider
builder,
which
was
part
of
the
open,
telemetry
sdk
package,
and
it's
allowed
da
based
configuration
for
all
the
components.
B
It
worked
very
well
for,
like
exporters,
because
exporters
had
a
dependency
on
the
sdk.
However,
when
I
tried
to
enable
the
same
for
instrumentations,
it
did
work,
but
that
was
purely
because
the
instrumentation
which
I
took
as
an
example,
the
asp.net
core
one,
had
a
dependency
on
the
api.
Sorry,
I
had
a
dependency
on
the
sdk,
but
as
per
open,
telemetry
spec.
The
guidance
is
for
instrumentation
to
depend
purely
on
the
api
and
not
on
any
particular
sdk.
B
So
this
vr,
which
michael
sent
few
weeks
back,
is
to
move
the
I
defer
tracer
provider
builder
from
sdk
to
api,
and
what
makes
it
challenging
is
the
I
service
collection
like
there
is
an
interface
called.
I
service
collection,
which
is
not
part
of
the
dot
net
runtime
or
the
I
mean
the
I
service
provider
is
part,
but
I
service
collection
is
not
part,
so
it
requires
adding
a
dependency
to
microsoft,
extensions,
dot,
d8,
dot
abstraction,
so
in
this
particular
pr
michael,
has
attempted
to
bring
it
without
adding
a
dependency.
B
So,
like
he's
pretty
much
recreating
I
service
collection
himself.
Here
there
were
like
a
lot
of
discussion
last
week
and
we
kind
of
agreed.
We
can
take
a
dependency
on
the
abstractions
package.
However,
that
is
also
somewhat
non-trivial,
because
that
package
doesn't
support
net
452,
so
we
will
have
conditional
compilation,
which
means
we'll
have
a
different
api
in
different
frameworks,
which
is
something
which
has
caused
some
issues
in
the
past.
It's
something
which
is
an
issue
going
forward
as
well,
so
we're
trying
to
find
the
best
balance
here.
B
So
the
the
proposal
which
I
wanted
to
discuss
with
michael
was
the
reason
why
we
need
sorry
the
reason
why
we
need
that
dependency
is
just
to
get.
I
service
collection,
property
on
I
defer
tracer
provider
builder
and
based
on
the
documentation
we
have
about
using
this
package.
B
Let
me
just
open
that
hosting
package,
like
majority
of
the
use
cases
can
be
solved
even
if
we
do
not
have
the
service
collection
in
the
deferred
tracing
provider,
for
example,
the
use
case
of
configuring,
a
individual
component
like
an
exporter
in
this
case,
can
be
done
without
that
the
ability
to
add
things
using
di
can
also
be
solved.
However,
if
you
are
building
an
extension
method
which,
like
this
is
where
you
are
building
an
extension
method,
where
you
need
access
to
the
actual
service
collection,
this
requires
the
deferred
builder
to
expose
services.
B
So
my
proposal
is
remove
the
remove
exposing
I
service
collection
on
deferred
tracer
provider
builder
for
now
and
ship
1.1,
so
that
we
will
still
support
all
the
these
scenarios.
We
won't
support
it.
We
won't
support
the
extension
building
extension
method
scenario.
It's
still
a
much
better
improvement
than
the
previous
version,
and,
if
you
reclined
last
week
like
we
were
listing
the
milestones
here
so
the
next
milestone,
one
of
the
next
milestone
is
coming
in
april,
26
1.3,
where
we'll
be
cutting
support
for
dotnet
framework,
four
five,
two
four
six
one.
B
So
at
that
time
we
should
be
able
to
take
a
dependency
on
the
ti
package,
because
at
that
time
all
the
frameworks
which
open
telemetry
supports
would
be
supporting
that
package.
So
there
shouldn't
be
any
traditional
compilation
issue,
so
my
proposal
is
then
very
straightforward:
just
remove
the
service
collection
from
that
builder
now
and
reintroduce
it
in
1.3.
B
It
does
limit
one
scenario,
but
other
scenarios
are
covered,
so
so,
michael
lucky,
since
you
already
responded,
I
think
we
can
modify
it.
Just
a
question
like
will
be
able
to
work
on
it
or
we
want
me
to
work
on
it.
B
Okay,
so
you
will
still
make
it
part
of
the
apa,
but
just
without
the
access
to
service
collection,.
B
B
B
So
I
mean
from
the
known
issues:
that's
the
only
one
blocking
our
beta
four,
that's
only
issue
which
is
stacked
for
that
milestone.
So
you
can
see.
This
is
only
one.
So
as
soon
as
that
is
done,
I'll
do
a
release
for
beta
four
and
then
there
are
no
open
issues
we'll
just
like
give
it
like
a
week
or
two
just
a
peaking
time
before
we
call
it
as
1.1.0.
C
B
Oh
okay,
probably
you're
right
yeah.
Let
me
quickly
check.
I
think
you
are
right
because
we
had
to
do
an
ad
hoc
released.
Just
to
let
me
see.
B
Oh
sorry,
this
is
the
non-code
component,
so
let's
see
yeah
so
beta
4
was
already
released,
so
yeah
thanks
for
catching
it.
It
is
indeed
beta
5,
because
we
did
release
beta
4
to
address
a
versioning
issue
previously
so
yeah,
okay,
so
I'll
update
it
here,
okay,
okay,
so
that
pretty
much
ends
our
agenda.
We'll
see
you
all
next
week,
hopefully
by
the
time
we
have
done
beta
5
and
should
be
very
close
to
1.1.