-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 752
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
[GrpcNetClient] Clarify impact to SuppressDownstreamInstrumentation #5340
[GrpcNetClient] Clarify impact to SuppressDownstreamInstrumentation #5340
Conversation
Would this PR description help on the direction? #960 (comment) |
Yes, this is an interesting thought to consider. I believe what you're saying is there's no reason instrumentation needs an SDK dependency to check Does anyone have strong feelings that we pursue this fix prior to releasing 1.7.1 today (#5322)? (@utpilla, @CodeBlanch, @vishweshbankwar) My opinion is, since this breaking change was introduced last November that we merge this PR with a clear advisory, release 1.7.1 today, and then follow up with this idea. |
Correct, it's just a convention/suggestion (instead of a promise) that anyone can choose to follow (e.g. if there is another telemetry SDK, it can choose to respect this flag as well). |
No.
I'm fine with that. |
Co-authored-by: Utkarsh Umesan Pillai <[email protected]>
I believe this(#960 (comment)) is a good option to consider for offering I am good with going ahead with the release for now. |
We should probably decide what we're actually going to do with
SuppressDownstreamInstrumentation
, but for the purpose of getting the next release out, I just wanted to clean up our advisory.