Open jpkrohling opened 6 months ago
cc @kentquirk
Pinging code owners for processor/tailsampling: @jpkrohling. See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself.
Yes, AND, I also think that the binary keep/drop structure is a problem because it's not adequately composable if the probability of the decision matters to you. This proposal is related but I'm not sure yet if it actually applies.
I'm interested in https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/issues/31584 if we could have more info / context / expectation :P
I think this is also relevant for the discussion: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/issues/25122
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 @open-telemetry/collector-contrib-triagers
. If this issue is still relevant, please ping the code owners or leave a comment explaining why it is still relevant. Otherwise, please close it.
Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself.
Component(s)
processor/tailsampling
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The tail-sampling processor has been there for a few years now, and despite being relatively popular, it hasn't changed much over the years besides adding new policies. There are a few things I always wanted to do but didn't have the time or motivation, and it would be a good idea to list them here in case we have volunteers to work on them.
Describe the solution you'd like
Describe alternatives you've considered
No response
Additional context
No response