-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 889
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Introduce specification for OTel Profiles #4197
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
We don't yet have anything about profiles in the spec, this would be the first. I think we need to decide what sections about profiling we want in the spec. Is it going to be data model description? Is data model going to be decoupled from its OTLP representation like we do for other signals (see log data model vs log proto or metric data model vs metric proto)? Or do we think that OTLP representation is all we care about? In that case this clarification about @open-telemetry/profiling-maintainers @open-telemetry/spec-sponsors thoughts? |
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
My initial preference would be to not maintain a separate data model description and focus on the OTLP representation. I'm assuming we can always come back to it and add an abstract data model description later? |
In my mind they're effectively the same thing, but the data model is a bit richer / filled with descriptions on usage and advanced concepts that may not be in the protocol. E.g. a description on how to associate symbols back to profiles outside of the raw OTLP send is in your data model. I agree that focusing on OTLP representaiton is priority #1 - but that's effectively working on the data model. You need a location to put information about how to consume and interpret the OTLP that goes beyond just "here's what this one message means". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see that there is still active discussion about how to organize this new content, but if you do decide to create new section(s) then, see the inline suggestion.
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
Added the hash specification for process.executable.build_id.profiling` for open-telemetry/semantic-conventions#1329. |
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
Co-authored-by: Christos Kalkanis <christos.kalkanis@elastic.co>
Co-authored-by: Christos Kalkanis <christos.kalkanis@elastic.co>
hey @florianl! stuck spec PRs are not uncommon 😅 and there is some general guidance here: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#how-to-get-your-pr-merged in this case I'd recommend reaching out to the profiling folks in the Profiling SIG meeting and in the #otel-profiling slack channel if you haven't already |
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Thanks 🙇
Co-authored-by: Trask Stalnaker <trask.stalnaker@gmail.com>
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
friendly ping @open-telemetry/technical-committee - can you provide some feedback why this change shouldn't move forward? |
AFAIK no such decision was made. Github will mark PRs stale based on activity and close them after a few days. Usually someone with permissions to do so manually removes the label before that happens but we can always reopen the closed PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, approving to make progress.
My question regarding what exactly we want to have in the spec repo for profiles (data model vs protocol details) I think still remains, but it is non blocking.
@open-telemetry/profiling-maintainers Please think about what structure of documents you would like to have for profiling in this repo.
This has enough approvals, including 2 from @open-telemetry/profiling-maintainers, so I am merging. |
## Changes Proposed change along with open-telemetry/semantic-conventions#1329 to clarify the use of `build_id` in the context of OTel Profiles. FYI: @open-telemetry/profiling-maintainers * [x] [`CHANGELOG.md`](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) file updated for non-trivial changes
Changes
Proposed change along with open-telemetry/semantic-conventions#1329 to clarify the use of
build_id
in the context of OTel Profiles.FYI: @open-telemetry/profiling-maintainers
CHANGELOG.md
file updated for non-trivial changes