Skip to content
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

Mark telemetry schema readme stable. #3221

Merged

Conversation

jsuereth
Copy link
Contributor

Part of unblocking #3219

Changes

Mark the telemetry schema README as stable.

Reasoning:

  • The README outlines a process for including schema files and defining transformations. OTEL has been following the process laid out for some time.
  • Most of the readme is informational/guidance.
  • The "meat" of stability for schemas is in the file format. These are still experimental, as we tune/figure out the right set of transformations. Any concerns around "right set of transformations" should be discussed when stabilizing the file format, given the current structure of the specification.
  • Significant components of semantic convention and the specification hinge on the existence of Schema files and the outlined process in this readme.

@jsuereth jsuereth requested review from a team February 16, 2023 18:22
@reyang
Copy link
Member

reyang commented Feb 16, 2023

Do we consider this README part of the spec or not?

If it's not part of spec, it shouldn't have "Stable" tag. (e.g. similar to https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/metrics/README.md)

If it is part of the spec, we need to fix the wording (e.g. s/should/SHOULD).

image

@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor

MrAlias commented Feb 16, 2023

Do we consider this README part of the spec or not?

If it's not part of spec, it shouldn't have "Stable" tag. (e.g. similar to https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/metrics/README.md)

If it is part of the spec, we need to fix the wording (e.g. s/should/SHOULD).

image

Good point. I had considered these README to be non-spec. I haven't been reviewing them for requirements we need to implement.

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member

Do we consider this README part of the spec or not?

This is a good question. I would definitely consider some parts to be a spec. For example "How Schemas Work" contains a lot of normative language. Similarly "Schema URL" section is precise and is a spec.

As opposed to that "Use Cases" are examples that are not a spec.

@arminru arminru added area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label labels Feb 20, 2023
@carlosalberto
Copy link
Contributor

I would definitely consider some parts to be a spec.

Agreed. Alternatively we can 'extract' such parts and put them into their own document. Fine by me either way.

@jsuereth
Copy link
Contributor Author

So I've updated the normative wording. I think there's a few normative phrases in this document that are crucial to stability and that we've been enforcing:

  • We will provide documentation of available schema transforms and limit ourselves to those available.
  • Schema URLs must be backed by real files that can be downloaded.

The other should/musts I found were demonstrative, not normative so I've modified them.

PTAL

@reyang reyang merged commit aea2fb2 into open-telemetry:main Feb 24, 2023
@jsuereth jsuereth deleted the pr-mark-telemetry-schema-readme-stable branch February 24, 2023 15:53
jsuereth added a commit to jsuereth/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2023
carlosalberto pushed a commit to carlosalberto/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants