-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
Migrate fraughtful language from Redis telemetry #14688
Comments
Pinging code owners: @pmcollins @dmitryax. See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
@hughesjj, would you like to submit a PR for that? |
They mentioned in the redis github issue about writing an alternative to the I know there are some commands with the migration applied, such as CLUSTER REPLICAS. Just need to verify coverage of the "alternative" commands vs redis |
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
@hughesjj Any progress? |
Hey, actually yes! But, of course, things have blown up. Schema processors might be useful to migrate older versions in a compatible manner. We need to figure out a good story across otel for how to let vendors know this ahead of time, and I'm bringing such up with the semantic conventions working group. I have not yet completed auditing of the ways to get this information in non-fraughtful ways. I owe you (customers of this issue) a list of mappings from INFO to other api calls of what we I know we could migrate. |
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
This issue has been closed as inactive because it has been stale for 120 days with no activity. |
So, plan of attack
[aside]
In the case of redis, we're lucky that their backwards support doesn't bite us often (really, ever so far), but other well used components (prometheus, k8s for starters) do have evolving nomenclature and APIs in their own products that are backwards incompatible. |
Describe the issue you're reporting
While working on getting Redis metrics in I noticed we're still using non-inclusive terminology for some of the Redis telemetry. Redis has deprecated the use of terminology such as
slave
as of 2018. I see we've been migrating such language across the project, and wanted to track the same effort for Redis.https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/blob/main/receiver/redisreceiver/metadata.yaml#L249
Might be cool to resurrect #3282 seeing as how it's Apache Licensed now
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: