Pull Request Dashboard

[github-actions]

Note

Open PRs are grouped by deterministic routing over per-thread LLM classifications. CI, conflicts, and activity age are computed deterministically and are shown as facts, not used as standalone routing reasons.

Waiting on maintainer (approved)

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Remove all shared internal code refs from zipkin exporter	jack-berg	✅	✅	2d

Waiting on approvers

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Update dependency org.mock-server:mockserver-netty to v6	app/renovate	❌	✅	?
Fix Groovy OpenTelemetrySdk builder loading	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	3d
profiles: improve JFR export example	jhalliday	✅	✅	2d
Make snakeyaml-engine and jackson-databind optional at runtime	zeitlinger	✅	❌	30d
Use setup-gradle w/ cache-provider: basic to use more permissive MIT …	jack-berg	✅	❌	46d
Add a ConfigProvider callback for runtime instrumentation option changes	jackshirazi	❌	❌	16d
Make StandardComponentId constructor public	brunobat	✅	❌	205d

Waiting on authors

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Finish adding OSGi support	jack-berg	✅	✅	1d
Commit declarative config schema pojos to git	jack-berg	❌	✅	8d
Merge colliding Prometheus label values	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	8d
Limit exemplar label characters to conform to Prometheus limits	anuq	✅	✅	4d
Update dependency java to v26	trask	✅	✅	44d
Replace ArrayBlockingQueue with park/unpark for BatchSpanProcessor$Worker	Khepu	✅	✅	29d
Add JSON pretty-print to logging-otlp exporters	lucacavenaghi97	✅	✅	2d
[DO NOT MERGE] JFR API usage	jhalliday	❌	✅	50d
Limit prometheus exemplar labels	harshitrjpt	✅	❌	13d

Waiting on external

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Update junit-framework monorepo - abandoned	app/renovate	❌	❌	15d
Update dependency java to v26	app/renovate	❌	✅	31d
Add fallback endpoint support for OTLP exporters	sridharsurvi1	❌	❌	37d

Diagnostics

PR #8418
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8417
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The reviewer raised a blocking follow-up about mandatory SPI imports, and the author replied that they will fix it and look for similar cases.)
route: author

PR #8413
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=2
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=2 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86C7dSe -> none (The author is just explaining that the test covers the concern; there’s no explicit request for a change or reply in this thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Dgb4W -> none (The author’s comment is just an FYI to another team about downstream changes; it doesn’t ask a question or request action on this thread.)
route: maintainer

PR #8408
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=8
threads: author=3 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKKVv -> none (The author is just pointing reviewers to the generated POJOs as the real review target; no follow-up or response is requested in the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKMLE -> reviewer (The author explained and justified the boxed-primitive suppression, so the ball is back with the reviewer to accept that explanation or continue the review.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKN7v -> author (The only comment is from the PR author, who is noting a potential change to Jackson handling and saying they want to see whether it should be changed. No reviewer reply or approval is present, so the next action is with the author.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPJM -> author (The latest comment is from the PR author and proposes an investigation/change to the generated method naming, so the author still has the next action.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPwd -> author (The author says the `toString` output is undesirable and that they should investigate disabling the identity hash and fixing formatting, so the next step is for the author to make changes.)
route: author

PR #8407
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=3
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMfQS -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for explanatory comments, and the author said they added one addressing that feedback. The thread is now back with the reviewer to confirm and resolve it.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMnfF -> none (The author answered the question and explained the `Object` change; no further action is requested or implied in the thread.)
route: approver

PR #8377
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=15
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Ab-gj -> external (The comment says to wait for the real bnd 7.3.0 release before merging, so progress is blocked on an upstream release outside this repository.)
route: external

PR #8364
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=8
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhQsA -> author (The approver requested a code change: add a comment and adjust the test strategy to avoid the extra allocation by deferring the expensive path until a collision occurs. No author response or fix is shown yet, so the author needs to act.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhVsZ -> author (The approver pointed out the fix only covers `attributes` and said collisions from `resource`, `scope`, and `additionalAttributes` also need to be considered, so the author needs to update the implementation.)
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The author says the PR is parked pending #8346, so this thread is blocked on that separate dependency before any further action here.)
route: author

PR #8362
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=4
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86C-hHG -> none (The comment is a non-blocking nit suggesting an optional test readability improvement, with no explicit requested change or follow-up needed.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86C-jIw -> author (The comment asks the PR author to make a code change (“Rename `short` to `short_attr`”), so the next action is on the author.)
route: author

PR #8349
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=2
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8270
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=30
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g857PtCt -> none (They reached agreement to defer this PR as a follow-up, and the last author comment is just acknowledgment with no outstanding question or requested response.)
route: approver

PR #8261
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=44
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855XQ2Y -> none (The author asked an optional environment question, and the approver replied “Fine with me,” so no further follow-up is needed in this thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855rwM4 -> author (The approver asked an explicit clarification question (“What’s this?”), so the PR author needs to जवाब/respond or explain the test change.)
route: author

PR #8256
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=46
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for the benefit, and the author responded with their rationale and supporting evidence; the thread is now waiting on the reviewer to confirm whether that explanation is sufficient.)
route: approver

PR #8240
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=29
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The reviewer asked for before/after benchmark results, and the author’s latest reply says they still need to figure out why the benchmark metrics are zero before they can provide them.)
route: author

PR #8232
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=31
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (Blocked by upstream GraalVM/Java 26 artifact availability, not a repo-local change; PR should wait until external support exists.)
route: external

PR #8197
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=37
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The PR is being held for the spec discussion outside this repository; the author linked the upstream spec issue and the reviewer said to keep this as a reference implementation while that process happens.)
route: external

PR #8164
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=2
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85z-n0C -> author (A reviewer requested a config-name change guardrail, and another approver endorsed the convention, but the code still needs the author to apply the suggested implementation change.)
route: author

PR #8076
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=16
threads: author=0 reviewer=2 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85-kTBF -> reviewer (The reviewer raised a performance suggestion, and the author replied "added," indicating they acted on it; the next step is for the reviewer to re-check the change or close the thread.)
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author’s latest comment asks how an extension can call `setConfig`, which requests reviewer/input on the API design rather than proposing a completed fix.)
route: approver

PR #7763
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=205
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for justification, and the author replied with an explanation. The thread is back in the reviewer’s court to decide whether that rationale is acceptable.)
route: approver

PR #7741
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=50
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The reviewer provided implementation options (disable animal sniffer, separate source set/module), and the thread remains unresolved; the author needs to choose and make the build change.)
route: author

PR #6791
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=13
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnGV -> author (The approver asked whether the change is based on a specification, so the author needs to პასუხ/justify the limit or update the implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnh9 -> author (A reviewer requested an added test, so the author needs to implement that follow-up.)
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The comment only points to another PR for the same issue and does not request any change or response, so it is informational only.)
route: author

Generated 2026-05-22 22:28 UTC