►
From YouTube: 2021-11-24 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
A
Hey
small
group
yeah,
I
mean
the
zoom
links
are
all
messed
up
this
week,
so
every
meeting
was
pretty
much
like
this,
so
yeah,
always
it's
very
tricky
to
get,
because
I
think
I
for
the
two
meetings
I
joined
like
a
different
phone
call
and
there
were
like
at
least
eight
ten
people,
so
I
thought
that
was
the
right
one,
but
they
were
all
wrong.
Just
like
me.
A
I
didn't
like
find
like
white
was
being
changed,
but
I
know
that
the
spec
and
maintenance
meet
like
everywhere.
It
was
mentioned
that
the
zoom
links
are
now
available
in
the
calendar
directly,
so
password
is
also
embedded
into
it.
So
you
don't
need
to
remember
the
password.
B
A
But
that
actually
makes
another
issue
because
it
doesn't
look
like.
I
have
the
privilege
to
share
the
screen.
Oh
now,
it's
back:
okay,
okay,
okay,
because
it's
usually
like
restricted
yeah,
okay.
Finally,
I
have
it
access.
So,
okay,
let
me
see
if
there
is
anyone
having
trouble
joining
on
this
right
now.
Okay,.
B
A
Yeah,
so
I
think
our
home
page
is
already
updated
about
the
zoom
link
change,
trying
to
figure
out
where
that
yeah
we
made
on
to
stay
and
check
the
calendar
for.
A
Yeah
I'm
just
back.
Yes,
I
was
saying,
like
the
contributing
dog
already
says,
the
link
can
be
found
from
the
calendar,
so
like
probably
like
next
couple
of
weeks.
I'll
do
an
explicit
link
shell
in
the
track,
so
that
people
don't
miss
it.
A
Okay,
yeah!
I
think
we
can
start
now
so
yeah.
We
just
covered
the
thing
and
having
a
hard
stop
at
4
30
today.
So
I
want
to
like
quickly
go
over
a
couple
of
naming
questions
so
I'll
just
start
with
that
right
away.
A
Yeah,
so
this
one
is
about,
so
we
are
adding
a
new
public
api
in
the
matrix
name
space,
which
basically
has
two
options.
It
says
what
is
the
type
of
reader?
The
exporter
should
be
paired
with,
so
it's
very
similar
to
what
we
had
for
tracing
like
where
we
have.
We
use
this
class
to
determine.
Should
we
use
a
simple
exporter,
simple
exporting
processor
or
batching
one
and
a
similar
concept
here,
but
unfortunately
the
spec
is
not
very
well
defined.
A
On
the
word
simple,
so
stereo
degree
is
well
clear:
periodic
means
it's
exported
or
the
radar
is
exporting
at
a
particular
given
interval
and
that
interval
is
given
in
the
periodic
export
option.
So
this
periodic
exporter
option
only
makes
sense
if
it
is,
the
type
itself
is
periodic
very
similar
to
the
batching
versus
simple
thing.
So
the
thing
which
I
want
to
discuss
here
is
the
name
simple.
Okay.
A
Today,
okay,
I
will
bring
back
the
comments,
so
if
anyone
can
suggest
any
better
names,
we'll
take
it
if
everything
goes
well,
we
would
be
like
stable
in
few
days.
So
that's
your
last
opportunity
to
change
before
stable.
A
It's
just
that
there
is
nothing
simple
about
it,
so
that's
only
trouble,
so
I
proposed
manual
because
the
only
way
you
would
ever
see
matrix
being
exported
is
if
someone
manually
calls
some
method
can
be
like
reader.collect
or
creator,
dot,
force,
flush
or
shut
down
or
dispose
the
whole
thing
down.
So
it's
basically
manual.
There
is
no
way
any
matrix
would
flow.
Unless
and
until
you
do
something
so
and
but
riley
had
a
different
thought.
He
says
basic
is
better
than
simple
manual.
A
Is
the
worst
I
don't
know
like
heather,
so
we'll
just
give
like
everyone
like
one
minute
to
think,
and
if
you
don't
have
any
better
name,
we
just
stick
with
what
it
is.
It's
not.
B
B
To
just
just
to
clarify,
we
that
pr
ended
up
landing
with
the
term
manual
and
not
simple
yeah,
actually.
A
That's
right,
I
forgot
to
mention
that
so
yeah
I
was
looking
at
the
wrong
one,
so
let
me
find
it
yeah
once
it's
thing,
I'm
looking
at
the
wrong
commit.
So
let's
see
okay
now
it
should
show
the
right
one.
A
Yeah
thanks
for
clarifying,
so
we
have
this
surprise
yeah.
So
this
is
the
one
yeah
I
opened
the
other
one
to
get
the
comments,
but
yeah,
I
totally
forget
yeah.
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
better
suggestions
so
most
likely
we'll
stick
with
that.
If
you
do
find
like
anything
like
less
confusing
or
more
ex
more
serving
the
purpose,
please
raise
it
as
an
issue.
A
So
I'll
share
the
update
about
the
release.
So
we
have
opportunity
until.
C
A
Thing
for
tracing
because
the
tracing
spec
explicitly
the
spec
itself
calls
it
symbol
and
batch,
so
we
just
borrowed
the
term
from
the
spec
symbol
and
batch,
but
for
matrix,
spec
only
mentions
about
like
periodic
thing,
and
it
doesn't
call
it
with
any
specific
name.
Okay,
that's
why
we
have
to
like
decide
among
ourselves.
What
would
be
the
name?
We
keep.
A
Yeah
and
the
ideal
thing
is
like
if
the
spec
would
clarify
that,
but
I
don't
see
that
happening
because
I
don't
know
like
whether
it's
a
problem
which
everyone
else
would
face,
it's
not
like
tracing
where
every
language
has
a
exact
same
model.
The
matrix
spec
is
a
little
bit
more
like
flexible.
It
basically
does
not
enforce
any
name,
it
just
says,
go
and
do
as
long
as
you
are
within
the
constraints.
A
That's
primarily
because
matrix
sdk
was
like
written
and
implemented
by
many
languages,
but
the
spec
was
likely
written.
So
in
order
to
avoid
having
to
rewrite
the
whole
thing.
Spec
was
intentionally
like
not
very
explicit
about
certain
things.
A
So
that's
my
sharing
of
history
based
on
what
I
know
in
the
last
two
years
with
the
matrix
world.
Okay.
So
if
anyone
finds
better
name
like
please,
let
us
know
either
I
say
issue
or
offer
apr
with
that
proposed
name.
Similarly,
I
have
another
question:
it's
again
another
thing
which
won't
be
covered
in
the
spec.
So
let
me.
B
One
last
question
kind
of
related
to
that
last
point:
do
you
think
it
makes
sense
to
apply
this
same
pattern
that
we've
just
applied
to
the
console
exporter
to
the
otlp
exporter
as
well?
Yeah?
Definitely,
yes,
yes
yeah!
I
thought.
A
A
Yeah
so,
like
I'll
put
a
note
like
we
need
to
like
follow
up
for
the
otp
as
well
prometheus,
I'm
not
worried
because
it
won't
be
stable,
at
least
in
the
next
two
weeks,
so
we'll
have
like
some
more
time
to
apply
that
okay,
yeah
and
the
next
one
is
about
the
this
api.
It's
a
public
api,
it's
about
like
for
each
metric.
We
do
have
a
cap
on
how
many
unique
combination
of
keys
and
value
pairs
we
track.
So
it's
like
we
have
a
default
of
like
1000
or
2000.
A
So,
if
some
for
some
reason,
if
the
user
wants
to
allow
more
key
value
combination,
they
would
go
and
use
this
api
to
set
whatever
that
highly
new
limit.
Is
this
is
applicable
to
the
entire
provider,
so
there
is
no
per
instrument
limit,
it's
applicable
to
all
the
instruments,
so
the
spec
does
not
have
when
it
does
mention
that
you
have
to
be
like
careful
about
the
memory.
It's
like
a
supplementary
guideline,
not
really
a
spec.
So
because
of
this,
this
is
not
something
which
I
expect
respect
to
clarifying
v1.
A
A
There
are
like
different
ways
to
handle
it,
so
this
particular
api
is
basically
just
dropping.
So
once
you
hit
the
limit,
you
start
dropping
the
new
measurements
following
that
newly
seen
combination,
but
there
are
matrix
api
which
does
something
more
like
they
don't
drop
the
data,
it's
just
that
they
allow
like
even
more
finer
control
on
a
number
of
dimensions
for
each
and
every
key,
and
they
also
do
like
some
sort
of
priority.
A
So
if
something
bad
wrong
or
if
you
hit
a
limit,
there's
a
list-
okay,
which
one
should
I
drop
so
that
we
can
bring
it
back
so,
but
we
don't
do
any
of
those
things,
but
when
the
spec
comes,
there
would
be
like
probably
like
some
detailed
spec
on
that,
but
until
now
we
need
it
just
to
protect
the
sdk
from
happening.
A
The
reason
why
this
has
to
be
public
is,
I
don't
know
what
is
that
default,
because
I
know
that
there
are
customers
who
are
having,
like
several
thousands
of
data
points
within
an
instrument.
So
unless
we
make
it
public,
they
won't
be
able
to
use
sdk.
A
So
if
you
have
like
ten
combinations,
you
would
have
10
metric
points
so
by
calling
it
as
sep
max
metric
point
per
metric
stream,
it's
basically
tied
to
the
dot
net
terminology
of
metric
point.
A
What
allen
was
suggesting,
I
think
was
you
are
like
referring
to
the
spec-
is
more
like
calling
it
as
a
data
point,
so
we
could
call
it
a
set
max
data
points
and
what
really
suggested
was
set.
Cardinality
set
max
cardinality.
A
So
those
were
the
yeah
thanks
alan.
So
let
me
find
the
conversation
where
we
would
find
the
actual
names.
A
A
Is
so
much
so
riley
thinks
cardinality
is
better
utkar
says,
set
time
series
limit.
I
think
we
ended
up
with
what
was
that
yeah.
We
ended
up
with
sorry
max
metric
points.
We
didn't
even
use
time
series,
so
I'm
okay
with
metric
points
asses
because
it
matches
the
public
ap
for
metric
point,
even
though
it's
not
like
really
aligned
with
what
spec
calls
a
symmetric
point
or
we
can
borrow
a
completely
different
name.
We
don't
use
the
word
category
anywhere,
but
that's
like
from
the
definition.
A
It
basically
is
what
we
are
limiting,
so
okay
with
cardinality
there.
So
if
you,
if
anyone
has
preferences,
please
let
me
know
right
now.
I
can
just
type
it
here
and
based
on
that,
I
can
submit
appear.
If
not
we
just
I
mean
I
I'm
quite
likely.
I
would
propose
to
use
cardinality
because
metric
point
is
a
very
specific
dotnet
implementation.
A
So
folks,
unless
you
are
writing
an
exporter,
you
may
not
even
be
familiar
with
the
telemetric
point,
but
cardinality
will
be
like
applicable
to
you.
Even
if
you
are
not
an
export
author
yourself,
but
you
are
just
a
consumer
of
the.
B
A
So
I'm
thinking
like
most
backends
use,
like
some
terminology
like
dimension
cap
or
cardinality
cap,
so
most
users
would
be
like
familiar
with
that
term,
as
opposed
to
metric
point
symmetric
point,
as
I
mentioned,
is
only
like.
This
will
do
the
export
others.
Not
many
would
actually
see
that
name.
B
A
D
There
is
in
the
spec
they
use
cardinality
in
the
http
span,
naming
stuff
and
they're
using
it
there,
not
as
the
number
of
items
in
the
set
it's
more
as
a
generic
case.
I
don't
know
if
that
will
be
confusing.
Oh
yeah,
I
think
in
the
not
in
the
matrix
semantic
convention.
D
A
That
looks
good
yeah.
It
says
this.
A
Yeah,
but
this
is
generally
referring
to
like
an
individual
like
how
many
values
that
he
can
ultimately
have.
So
that's
what
they
are
referring
to.
Cardinality.
B
A
Like
I
said,
there
is
no
better
solution.
Like
worst
case,
we
stick
with
a
name
like
struggle
is
coming
after
us,
we'll
struggle
until
we
have
the
two
daughter
coming
when
we
can
finally
change
it.
So
anyway,
we
spend
like
10
minutes,
so
I
I'll
just
trust
it
now.
If
there
are
better
names,
I
think
we
can
either
propose
as
a
pr
or
issue
as
long
as
we
are
not
1.2.
A
At
that
time
we
can
still
concentrate
so
with
that
I'll,
just
move
to
one
to
two
issues,
anything
else.
Anyone
want
to
praise
now.
B
Okay,
I
just
had
one
other
thing
popping
in
my
mind,
but
I
can
go
after
you
talk
about
1.2.
A
Yeah,
so
I've
been
tracking
and
assigning
milestones
last
couple
of
weeks,
so
we
have.
We
still
have
the
two
external
dependencies.
The
first
one
is
cleared.
The
second
one
is
still
up
in
the
air,
so
there
is
a
proposal
to
market
stable
by
number
30.
it's
to
be
seen
whether
it
actually
gets
approved.
My
gut
feeling
is:
if
it's
not
approved
on
number
30,
then
it
won't
be
approved
for
like
another
like
jan
first
week
or
something
because
most
folks
would
be
on
vacation.
A
So
there
wouldn't
be
much
activity,
but
that's
beyond
our
control.
So
if
it
happens,
then
we
are
go
up
from
that
side,
but
then
the
key
issues
we
have
to
be
like,
like
done
with
all
the
things
listed
here,
so
I
use
the
priority
just
to
indicate
the
things
which
we
have
to
do.
If
we
don't
do
this,
then
we
cannot
check
like
no
matter
whether
the
stack
is
stable
or
not,
and
then
there
are
things
which
are
having
like
mark
with
p0.
A
Those
are
things
which
would
be
really
nice
to
have,
but
even
if
you
don't
have
it,
it's
really
additive
change.
We
can
really
add
it
later
or,
for
example,
like
we
have
like
some
issue
open
for
value.
Validations
like
counters
can
be
positive.
Histogram
should
be
positive,
like
some
basic
validation.
So
if
you
don't
do
that,
we
add
it
later.
It's
still
like
value
change,
it's
not
considered
like
a
breaking
change.
It
can
be
thought
of
as
a
bug
fix,
so
we.
A
We
may
not,
because
we
only
have
like
few
days
assuming
we
still
want
to
keep
the
number
and
target
so
based
on
that.
I
marked
only
two
items
as
these
are
everything
else
are
really
nice
to
have.
If
you
don't
have
it,
it's
it's
still
possible
for
us
to
declare
stable.
A
So
if
anyone
has
concerns
with
this
list-
or
there
is
anything
which
is
not
right
here-
you
can
pick
that
now.
So
maybe.
A
Maybe,
like
three
all
are
tied
to
views
because
we
we
currently
do
not
allow
a
user
to
change
the
aggregation
itself,
so
histogram
will
always
be
producing
histograms
like
which
will
always
be
producing
page.
But
theoretically,
with
a
view
you
could
change
language
to
a
histogram
or
counter
to
like
all
sort
of
combination.
A
So
that's
a
specked
out
thing,
but
we
haven't
implemented
that
and
then
getting
additional
tags
from
baggage.
That's
other
thing
and
then
example.
So
these
three
are
the
metric
specific
features
which
are
missing.
I
think
there
is
one
other
thing
which
is
missing.
I
think
yeah.
I
have
already
called
it
here.
Yes,
the
list
which
I
wanted.
So
these
are
the
things
which
are
like
really
specked
out,
but
we
haven't
done
it
and
min
max
is
like
99
percent
specked
out,
except
the
otp
photo
file.
A
The
profile
is
not
yet
merged,
but
the
spec
says
this
is
a
stable
spec
so
and
exponential
histogram
is
really
a
experimental
thing,
so
we
don't
really
need
to
worry
about
it
until
it
gets
a
stable
state.
I
don't
know
this
is
not
expecting.
A
So
those
are
the
things
which
we
essentially
are
not
considering
as
fan
of
as
part
of
1.2,
which
means
it
can
be.
The
earliest
would
be
1.3
okay.
So
if
there
are
any,
I
think
I
probably
reached
out
to
alan
offline
about
the
min
max
part,
and
you
are
fine
with
that.
A
Okay
yeah.
That
means
I
think
this
was
added
selected
me
just
to
open
this
alan.
Can
you
walk
me
through
this
issue?
If
you
regret
working.
B
At
the
otlp
exporter
today,
I
was
reminded
of
this
issue.
This
question
came
up
in
my
mind
too.
So
when
we
designed
the
otlp
exporter
options,
you
know
it's
only
about
traces,
and
so
now
it's
not
just
the
otp
exporter,
but
it's,
I
think
most
of
our
exporters
have
kind
of
a
mishmash
of
both
tracing
related
and
metric
related
configuration
values.
A
So
I
think
all
we
added
was
to
this
class
was
the
metric
one
which,
with
the
exponent
cloud
right
and
these
two
yeah,
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
split
it
into
separate
one
along
with
the
other
pr
which
allows
one
to
pick
periodic
versus
manual.
A
Okay,
anyone
else
has
any
thoughts.
I
think
this
this
should
be
like
relatively
small
right.
Like
hello,
I
mean
in
terms
of
actual
work.
It
should
be
very
straightforward
to
move
it
out
into
its
own
class.
B
Yeah,
I
think
it
would
be
relatively
straightforward.
It's
not
tremendously
clean
in
my
mind,
just
because
one
you
know
we
can't
make
the
breaking
change
for
the
class
called
otlp
exporter
options
and
that
and
then
to
the.
If
we
made
a
separate
class
for
metrics,
we'd
have
to
duplicate
a
lot
of
the
common
properties.
B
You
know
if
we
had
this
to
do
all
over
again.
We'd
probably
have
some.
I
don't
know
like
a
base
class
or
something.
A
A
So
the
class
already
exists.
It's
just
that
for
otlp.
We
would
want
to
expose
it,
but
not
by
making
it
part
of
the
hotel
exporter
options.
It
should
be
like
something
like
otp
matrix,
folder
options.
If
that's,
what
alan
is
proposing
right
like.
B
D
A
D
A
Okay,
it's
not
that
bad,
because
if
you
look
at
like
some
properties
like
this,
like
the
this
particular
option
is
only
applicable
if
it
is
batch.
So
we
could
really
say
that
if
the
signal
is
matrix,
then
only
these
are
applicable,
so
it's
not
as
bad
but
yeah.
So
it's
not
goodly
clean
either.
B
A
Exporter
type
and
then
yeah,
I
mean
exactly
the
same
as
the
console
right
here
only
three
ratings.
I
am
still
thinking
like
how
do
we
have
three.
B
It'll
be
temporality,
it'll,
be
the
export
type
and
then
it'll
be
like
the
periodic
options.
Yeah
one
two
three
exactly
three.
A
Okay,
if
like,
if
we
have
time,
we
can
just
try
to
like
make
a
small
pr
and
see
whether
that
would
actually
look
ugly
or
I
mean
uglier,
or
will
it
be
like
any
better,
but
I
don't
really
feel
very
strongly
that
we
should
do
it.
A
It
should
be
okay,
with,
with
the
same
thing,
we
should
be
okay
to
leave
with
three
things
which
are
only
applicable
to
the
matrix
thing.
B
Yeah,
I
don't
have
a
strong
feeling
either,
but
I
kind
of
like
michael's
idea.
I
think,
as
we
do
this
as
we
apply
those
changes
to
the
otlp
exporter,
that
we
did
the
console
exporter
as
a
follow-on.
I
might
just
put
in
a
draft
pr
just
to
continue
the
conversation
there
and
we
can
just
thumbs
up
thumbs
down.
B
Okay,
yeah
yeah.
D
A
B
I
I
think
that
java
has
it
as
two
separate
components
right
now,
but
that's
largely
because
that's
how
they've
organized
things
with
metrics
not
yet
being
stable,
I
think
I
heard
that
they
tend
to
combine
those
just
like
we
have
once
those
things
sound,
stupid
yeah.
But
I
wouldn't
quote
me
on
that.
I
I.
A
Okay,
yeah,
we
might
be
able
to
borrow
if
they
have
like
a
better
thing
yeah,
but
for
in
general,
like
for
metrics,
I
haven't
found
like
a
lot
of
things
which
we
can
borrow,
because
every
language
has
their
own
thing
because
go
implement
it
first,
while
prototyping
and
java
implemented
and
total
roads
implemented.
But
we
decided
to
throw
away
and
rebuild.
A
Go
is
still
in
the
process
of
doing
that
java,
basically
refactored
it
to
match
the
new
spec.
So
there
are
like
it's
unlike
tracing,
I
don't
see
much
but
yeah.
I
think
the
exporter
options
is
probably
like
something
which
we
should
be
able
to
look
at
like
when
you
start
like
you
might
be
able
to
offer
a
draft
after
the
changes
are
done
to
the
otp
exporter
options
like
if
you
have
time
like.
Could
you
just
check
the
like
java
thing?
A
So
at
least
we
can
see
whether
it's
it's
a
program
for
torment
alone,
or
we
shared
by
other
languages
as
well
sure
sounds
good
yeah.
I
can
do
that
uh-huh
yeah.
So
in
terms
of
like
issues,
I
sorry
the
milestone
once
for
you
I
mean
so
this
metric
point.
Public
api
change
is
what
we
are
like
spending
most
time
now,
so
you
can
already
see
like
there
are
many
pr's,
so
the
key
things
like
and
we're
not
changing
any
changing
any
functionality.
A
It's
just
that
the
exporter
has
to
go
like
one
method
versus
another,
so
it's
not
really
like
a
functionality
change.
It's
just
said
there
is
a
breaking
apa
change,
so
there
are
like
at
least
two
peers
thinking
and
maybe,
like
michael,
was
already
trying
to
do
something.
I
don't
think
michael
submitted
that
pr
yet
so
there
will
be
some
changes
here
and
I'm
also
trying
to
modify
the
metric
type
we
currently
have.
The
metric
type
does
not
distinguish
between
the
three
or
four
types
of
histogram.
A
It
just
has
a
thing
called
histogram,
but
in
the
future
we
would
have
histogram
with
some
and
max
then
the
histogram
with
bounce
and
then
histogram
with
bounce
and
min
and
max
so
trying
to
modify
the
e
m
to
add
that
also
so
that
would
also
be
like
all,
but
it
will
all
be
coming
into
the
metric
point.
So
I
expect
we
would
be
having
some
worse
conflicts
as
well.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
see
like
any
neat
way
to
do
that
so
yeah
just
be
like
patient.
That's.
A
The
only
thing
is
second,
I
can
say
I
think,
like
we
already
have
like
two
pr
so,
depending
on
the
order
in
which
they
go,
there
would
be
like,
like
some
some
conflict,
so
I
think
I
can
just
let
you
know
that
there
will
be
conflict
but
other
than
that
not
much
can
be
done
yeah,
but
one
final
answer
is
like.
If
anyone
has
like
free
cycles,
please
take
a
look
at
the
tools.
I've
been
looking
at
tools.
I
didn't
find
anything
which
require
like
immediate
attention.
A
There
is.
There
are
like
several
tutors
where
we
say
like
log
like
we
are
dropping
metrics,
so
we
need
to
do
something.
So
it's
nice,
if
you
land
it
before
stable.
If
you
don't
like,
we
can
always
add
it
later
as
well.
A
But
if
anyone
has
cycles,
please
help
with
that
part.
It's
not
like
p0,
because
we
can
still
ship
it
based
on
what
I
described
earlier
and
I'll
just
quickly
show
the
spec
status
in
case.
If
you
are
not
actively
following
the
spec
word
for
this
scene,
do
you
have
to
go?
You
said
you
had
a
hard
stop,
yeah,
okay!
I
have
to
go
in
two
minutes
so
for
36,
so
I
will
go
thanks
for
remaining.
Otherwise
my
shirt
will
have
remained
yeah.
A
So
I'll
just
say
this
is
the
vr
which
says
marks
the
stackers
table.
So
I'll
just
share
it
here.
So
I'll
keep
an
eye
on
that.
If
it
happens.
A
So
it's
meant
to
be
like
stable
on
number
30,
so,
which
means
we
won't
be
doing
it
necessarily
on
the
same.
They
will
at
least
think
like
one
more
day
to
figure
out
some
logistics
primarily
to
not
release
prometheus
success
table
because
for
me
this
won't
be
stable
and
also
to
see
whether
or
np
would
be
stable
or
not.
That
is
still
not
clear.
A
So
how
like
some
manual
like
tasks
to
figure
out
how
to
release
them,
not
not
at
the
same
time,
so
I
expect
it
to
be
like
number
first,
not
on
30th,
assuming
it
gets
smashed.
So
if
this
stick,
if
this
pr
doesn't
get
merged,
then
we'll
leave
with
rc
rc1,
whatever
rc
release
candidate
and
then
come
back
whenever
the
spec
system
will
be.
If
it
happens
on
like
december
2,
I
would
be
working
at
least
till
the
like
first
half
of
december,
so
I
should
be
able
to
do
that.
A
If
not
it's
something
we'll
come
back
and
do
on
college,
okay,
yeah!
So
that
ends
all
the
topics
in
the
agenda.
We
still
have
like
few
items
left
for
1.2.
So
if
you
have
cycles,
please
do
help,
especially
on
the
reviewing
the
prs
as
well
and
also
looking
for
any
major
to-do
items
or
in
general,
like
exploring
the
code
and
finding
any
any
loopholes
or
any
bugs
yeah.
So
I
guess
that's
it.
I
have
a
heart
stop
now,
so
we'll
see
you
later.