Carlos Alberto Cortez
Carlos Alberto Cortez
Is this something we should wait to include in the January's release?
@reyang You mean for **this** month's release (happening later today)?
Let's play it on the defensive side and include this in the next release (January). IMHO no need to rush and include in today's (December) release.
I will conduct the due diligence for this donation proposal on behalf of the TC. Will provide a summary next week.
Let's wait for @arminru to review, and let's advertise this in our Spec call.
So I did a quick review and indeed, names have _slightly_ changed. So the short answer is that the **Specification** names should be used. The long answer is that [OTEPs...
On the names themselves, these new set of samplers are still in development, and we can still change their names _if_ needed. I agree with @jmacd on > do not...
cc @open-telemetry/specs-entities-approvers for extra eyes
During the Spec call of April 9th there was initial agreement on the need to support this, hence marking this as valid.
I support!