First stab at documenting the art of defining semantic conventions #1707
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)
docs/general/how-to-define-semantic-conventions.md:69
- The phrase 'are involved into instrumentation efforts' should be 'are involved in instrumentation efforts'.
are involved into instrumentation efforts, and are committed to be the point of contact for
lmolkova
force-pushed
the
how-to-contribute-new-conventions
branch
from
2afb348 to
6f90089
Compare
|
While I’m not opposed to this PR and appreciate the idea of having a clear path for defining semantic conventions, I would like to raise a concern about donation of ECS into Otel, where we still have a significant number of new namespaces / new fields to be added to the Otel and this could potentially slow down the merger. Should we consider establishing a short-circuit path to streamline the donation process? |
|
|
||
| - It provides a clear benefit to end users by enhancing telemetry. | ||
| - There is a clear plan to use the attributes when defining spans, metrics, events, resources, or other telemetry signals in semantic conventions. | ||
| - There is a clear plan on how these attributes will be used by instrumentations |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are these criteria connected with AND, should they all apply? I would recommend to specify it explicitly to avoid confusion
|
@trisch-me This PR outlines path to success and best practices. Most of the language used there is non-normative. |
lmolkova
force-pushed
the
how-to-contribute-new-conventions
branch
from
d91704c to
abecb36
Compare
A lot of todos, which I'd like to tackle in follow up PRs (hopefully with the help of others)
Merge requirement checklist
[chore]