Added a new blog post about go and opentelemetry

[NavehMevorach]

(Edit: @chalin)

Preview: https://deploy-preview-1581--opentelemetry.netlify.app/blog/2022/how-to-get-started-with-opentelemetry-go

[linux-foundation-easycla[bot]]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• :white_check_mark: login: NavehMevorach (9cc9b9458a17a47aef0fcfad6e22586ba5450a33)

[cartermp]

Before I begin with a review:

• @open-telemetry/blog-approvers this looks like a repost from a vendor blog - is that okay? I'm personally fine with that in theory, just haven't had one pop up yet
• @NavehMevorach this presents an alternative way to get started compared to the current docs + this PR (which I have admittedly lagged on as per latest feedback) -- how would you rationalize that?

[NavehMevorach]

Before I begin with a review:

• @open-telemetry/blog-approvers this looks like a repost from a vendor blog - is that okay? I'm personally fine with that in theory, just haven't had one pop up yet
• @NavehMevorach this presents an alternative way to get started compared to the current docs + this PR (which I have admittedly lagged on as per latest feedback) -- how would you rationalize that?

I will update the post to match the opentelemetry docs. As for the fact that is a vendor blog post - I removed all parts that refer to the vendor product (as you can see it only shows Otel with jaeger as a visualization tool

[cartermp]

@NavehMevorach sorry for not getting back promptly. Sounds good to me!

I don't think this necessarily needs to match what's in the PR I linked. Probably better to get something out there now than try to make it perfect later. I'll leave it up to you if you want to augment it or not.

[svrnm]

• @open-telemetry/blog-approvers this looks like a repost from a vendor blog - is that okay? I'm personally fine with that in theory, just haven't had one pop up yet
• @NavehMevorach this presents an alternative way to get started compared to the current docs + this PR (which I have admittedly lagged on as per latest feedback) -- how would you rationalize that?

I don't have a concern with this being a repost from a vendor blog (if I remember correctly it's good practice to point out that "this blog post appeared here first" or something), but I agree that it is not clear to me, how this blog post differentiates from the Go getting started? If there is good material we can use in the docs, let's incorporate it there and add the blog post to the acknowledgments.

[NavehMevorach]

• @open-telemetry/blog-approvers this looks like a repost from a vendor blog - is that okay? I'm personally fine with that in theory, just haven't had one pop up yet
• @NavehMevorach this presents an alternative way to get started compared to the current docs + this PR (which I have admittedly lagged on as per latest feedback) -- how would you rationalize that?

I don't have a concern with this being a repost from a vendor blog (if I remember correctly it's good practice to point out that "this blog post appeared here first" or something), but I agree that it is not clear to me, how this blog post differentiates from the Go getting started? If there is good material we can use in the docs, let's incorporate it there and add the blog post to the acknowledgments.

Hi @svrnm , if you referring to this Go getting started , We tried to add some info about getting started with go and a web server with a db.

[svrnm]

• @open-telemetry/blog-approvers this looks like a repost from a vendor blog - is that okay? I'm personally fine with that in theory, just haven't had one pop up yet
• @NavehMevorach this presents an alternative way to get started compared to the current docs + this PR (which I have admittedly lagged on as per latest feedback) -- how would you rationalize that?

I don't have a concern with this being a repost from a vendor blog (if I remember correctly it's good practice to point out that "this blog post appeared here first" or something), but I agree that it is not clear to me, how this blog post differentiates from the Go getting started? If there is good material we can use in the docs, let's incorporate it there and add the blog post to the acknowledgments.

Hi @svrnm , if you referring to this Go getting started , We tried to add some info about getting started with go and a web server with a db.

Yes, that's what I am talking about. From an end user perspective it's going to be confusing why there is a blog post about "How to Get Started with OpenTelemetry Go" along side the "Go Getting Started" in the docs, so here are 2 ways to solve this:

1. Integrate your blog post into the go documentation
2. Change the title and parts of the content to something that calls out what you said "Learn how to instrument a webserver and database connection in go" (something better than this)

I would prefer (1), but that's for the @open-telemetry/go-approvers do decide. I am also ok if we go with (2)

[cartermp]

@svrnm let's go with option (2) for now and not let perfect be the enemy of good. There's a lot of good content in this post, and it's a larger lift to incorporate the WIP stuff I have in the Go SDK PR. The last bit of feedback there is that the code samples need some work since they're not idiomatic. I wouldn't want to hold up a blog post on account of my own lack of agency in getting that feedback addressed.

[NavehMevorach]

@svrnm let's go with option (2) for now and not let perfect be the enemy of good. There's a lot of good content in this post, and it's a larger lift to incorporate the WIP stuff I have in the Go SDK PR. The last bit of feedback there is that the code samples need some work since they're not idiomatic. I wouldn't want to hold up a blog post on account of my own lack of agency in getting that feedback addressed.

@svrnm @cartermp, I Just changed the title to: Instrument your Go web application with openTelemetry

[svrnm]

@cartermp, @NavehMevorach: then let's do it that way, changing the title is the easiest way indeed.

[NavehMevorach]

npx prettier --write content/en/blog/2022/file-name-for-your-blog-post.md

Done

[chalin]

Thanks for the updates @NavehMevorach. I just rebased and pushed some markdown-indentation fixes, along with some minor copyedits. I also added a link to your GH page. For details, see https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io/pull/1581/commits/a2179714df984514d8a54bc3336bb32ec21f9539. Let me know if you're ok with the changes.

Btw, without the markdown indentation fixes, this is what the page looked like:

To view the diff without whitespace changes, use https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io/commit/a2179714df984514d8a54bc3336bb32ec21f9539?w=1, and you'll see that not much was changed.

Note that the publication date was changed.

[chalin]

I think that we're getting close to having this accepted ...? WDYT @svrnm, @cartermp? If so, here's what I propose:

1. @svrnm, @cartermp review and approve.
2. I'll merge the page as is (which is marked as draft and so will not show up on the production server yet), so that I can make a copy-editing pass, repackage images, etc.
3. I'll submit my copyedits for approval by @NavehMevorach and y'all
4. Once we agree, I'll drop the draft status and we'll get this published.

How does that sound?

[svrnm]

I think that we're getting close to having this accepted ...? WDYT @svrnm, @cartermp? If so, here's what I propose:

1. @svrnm, @cartermp review and approve.
2. I'll merge the page as is (which is marked as draft and so will not show up on the production server yet), so that I can make a copy-editing pass, repackage images, etc.
3. I'll submit my copyedits for approval by @NavehMevorach and y'all
4. Once we agree, I'll drop the draft status and we'll get this published.

How does that sound?

Sounds good to me, repackaging and having the images living in the repo is all that I see missing.

@cartermp, @chalin, @austinlparker: Selfish question, since my blog is at the top right now: Do we have some rules (or should we have some rules?) on publication cadence? Would be great to give each post at least a few days before the next one comes out?

[chalin]

Thanks for giving a +1 to the suggested process. Merging now (as draft).

[chalin]

@cartermp, @chalin, @austinlparker: Selfish question, since my blog is at the top right now: Do we have some rules (or should we have some rules?) on publication cadence?

@svrnm - I'm not aware that we have any such rules on publication cadence (on this or other site's I've worked on).

Would be great to give each post at least a few days before the next one comes out?

I'd prefer for posts to come out whenever they've received their final approval, even if that means that some come out at more or less at the same time. I won't vote against throttling rules if someone else wants to be responsible for the throttling, but I feel that we have enough to deal with already. My 2 cents.

[NavehMevorach]

I think that we're getting close to having this accepted ...? WDYT @svrnm, @cartermp? If so, here's what I propose:

1. @svrnm, @cartermp review and approve.
2. I'll merge the page as is (which is marked as draft and so will not show up on the production server yet), so that I can make a copy-editing pass, repackage images, etc.
3. I'll submit my copyedits for approval by @NavehMevorach and y'all
4. Once we agree, I'll drop the draft status and we'll get this published.

How does that sound?

Fine by me