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

Specification & OTEP relationship: Provide references to implemented OTEPs #3792

Open
24 of 46 tasks
svrnm opened this issue Dec 14, 2023 · 7 comments
Open
24 of 46 tasks
Labels
spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label triage:accepted:ready Ready to be implemented. Small enough or uncontroversial enough to be implemented without sponsor

Comments

@svrnm
Copy link
Member

svrnm commented Dec 14, 2023

What are you trying to achieve?

Please take a look at this issue by @hterik: open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io#3685, the particular issue is that it is not clear from the Spec on Span Status), what the intend of this section is. Only after going into the Git Blame View, digging up a related PR and issue, I was able to find the OTEP 136 which provides examples & background on why things are specified this way.

This is only one instance of an issue I had a few times now: while reading the spec, I missed the full picture of where things are coming from and why they are the way they are. Knowing how things work, I looked for the right OTEP to learn more. Outsiders lack this knowledge.

Therefore, what I want to suggest with this issue, is that the specification has in-place back links to the OTEPs that have been implemented by a certain section. Ideally as close as possible to the content, e.g. in the case of Span Status this shouldn't be a Reference section at the very bottom of the page, but a footnote at the title, or a line at the beginning stating that this is implementing this and that OTEP.

Many OTEPs contain a lot of valuable contextual details, so I think this would help people a lot to understand the specification better by having them accessible from the right spot in the spec.

Additional context.

So far I could identify the following places where a reference is provided:

Tracking

@svrnm svrnm added the spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label label Dec 14, 2023
@dyladan
Copy link
Member

dyladan commented Dec 14, 2023

I really like this idea. I believe it may also help the PR review process when new specification is added if it explicitly calls out the OTEP which motivates it directly in the text.

@hterik
Copy link

hterik commented Dec 15, 2023

This sounds like good idea for easier traceability. One has to be careful to not rely too heavily on it though, linking to xEPs should not be a substitute for good documentation.

For an example of what can happen, see Python the typing module. Where the documentation was for a long time lacking and often referring back to old PEPs, that by time became superseded by later improvements and instead provided out-of-date examples. python/cpython#91533

@reyang reyang added the [label deprecated] triaged-needmoreinfo [label deprecated] The issue is triaged - the OTel community needs more information to decide label Dec 20, 2023
@reyang
Copy link
Member

reyang commented Dec 20, 2023

We will have a discussion in the upcoming TC meeting next year (2024).

@reyang reyang assigned reyang and unassigned jsuereth Dec 20, 2023
@austinlparker austinlparker added triage:accepted:ready Ready to be implemented. Small enough or uncontroversial enough to be implemented without sponsor and removed [label deprecated] triaged-needmoreinfo [label deprecated] The issue is triaged - the OTel community needs more information to decide labels Apr 9, 2024
@austinlparker austinlparker added sig-issue A specific SIG should look into this before discussing at the spec and removed triage:accepted:ready Ready to be implemented. Small enough or uncontroversial enough to be implemented without sponsor labels Apr 9, 2024
@austinlparker
Copy link
Member

We don't have a project to assign this to yet, but this is on the GC to solve.

@tigrannajaryan tigrannajaryan added the triage:deciding:tc-inbox Needs attention from the TC in order to move forward label Apr 19, 2024
tigrannajaryan added a commit to tigrannajaryan/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this issue Apr 24, 2024
@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member

OTEPs 0035, 0099, 0122 are linked from https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-proto/blob/main/docs/specification.md

Marking as done.

tigrannajaryan added a commit to tigrannajaryan/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this issue Apr 29, 2024
tigrannajaryan added a commit to tigrannajaryan/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this issue Apr 29, 2024
tigrannajaryan added a commit to tigrannajaryan/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this issue Apr 29, 2024
@tigrannajaryan tigrannajaryan added triage:accepted:needs-sponsor Ready to be implemented, but does not yet have a specification sponsor and removed triage:deciding:tc-inbox Needs attention from the TC in order to move forward labels May 22, 2024
@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member

We are looking for volunteers to edit the spec and add the references to OTEPs.

@tigrannajaryan tigrannajaryan added triage:accepted:ready Ready to be implemented. Small enough or uncontroversial enough to be implemented without sponsor and removed triage:accepted:needs-sponsor Ready to be implemented, but does not yet have a specification sponsor labels May 22, 2024
@reyang
Copy link
Member

reyang commented May 22, 2024

I've updated the metrics related OTEPs. #4022

@trask trask removed the sig-issue A specific SIG should look into this before discussing at the spec label Oct 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label triage:accepted:ready Ready to be implemented. Small enough or uncontroversial enough to be implemented without sponsor
Projects
Status: Spec - Accepted
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants