IOW if withholding an approval will help us get to 1.0 sooner, I will do that.
@jmacd getting rid of the internal OpenCensus data format is blocked by finalizing the protocol definitions. We are not going to start working on metrics conversion when metrics protocol is in such fluid state since every change in a protocol definition breaks Collector internal code. Things are better for trace part. Trace-related components in the Core are now converted to OTLP with the exception of Zipkin. Collector core maintainers do not intend to convert contrib components. We will publish guidelines for contributors to convert their components once we are certain trace protocol is final and we are not going to make further changes to it in the near future. I am deliberately delaying this to avoid asking contributors to redo their work again. Logs work is done by different people (me) and has no effect on this (since I am not doing conversion work - it is primarily Bogdan and others). Withholding log approval is not going to help with this in any way. Expediting metric work and finalizing metric protocol will help.
Traces are still using the OpenCensus format internally, yes? This is going to hamper performance. I still feel that logs is a distraction and that the charter for OTel includes spans and metrics until it reaches 1.0
@jmacd No. Traces are using OTLP for most of core components (except Zipkin).
Thanks. I had heard otherwise as recently as this morning. I recommend a SIG for logging w/ its own approvers. For me, paying attention to logs will slow down metrics..
Having log approvers makes sense to me.
@bogdandrutu I believe we were already moving in the direction of having separate approvers for signals, right?
It's "approved" for metrics, but not deployed.
I am moving to that direction, final cleanups before we enable that
@zenmoto is gitter a good communication mechanism? LMK if there’s a better option.
@jeffalder it should be, though you may have to @ me if I don’t reply here. I’ll be better about running the client so I get notifications.
The PR for the spec seems like there are a bunch of vendor specific things. Why do Splunk need SignalFX events and Splunk events? Same with the google/amazon log fields, we could make those generic versus specific.
hm? that isn't the case. also the otep PR is not the spec, it is the process before a spec is written
ah saw your comments on the PR. don't think you should worry about getting in a logz.io mapping/example to the OTEP. -- unless you think it shows something that would require changing the otep, but the otep isn't the spec so the spec isn't in stone after its merger
I didn't bother sending an Erlang mapping like there is for log4j and zap because I don't think it would add anything to the otep, but there certainly will be one when the spec is complete
@tigrannajaryan thank you for all the amazing work and your leadership 👍🏻🙏🍻
Rahul M Chheda
Congrats @tigrannajaryan ! That's great!
Thanks everyone for reviewing and providing valuable feedback. Next: logging libraries, log protocol and log data support in Collector.
@/all I have to move the SIG meeting time today to 11am PT avoid the overlap with OpenTelemetry Community meeting.
I am not sure if this is the correct location to ask this question; however, are there specific individuals that are allowed to participate in the Log SIG meetings? I am looking to listen on the calls, but I am open to contributing. TIA!