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	✅	✅	4d

Waiting on approvers

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Bound OkHttp sender dispatchers and surface rejections	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	1d
Update dependency org.mock-server:mockserver-netty to v6	app/renovate	❌	✅	?
Finish adding OSGi support	jack-berg	✅	✅	1d
Fix Groovy OpenTelemetrySdk builder loading	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	5d
Limit exemplar label characters to conform to Prometheus limits	anuq	✅	✅	1d
profiles: improve JFR export example	jhalliday	✅	✅	4d
Make snakeyaml-engine and jackson-databind optional at runtime	zeitlinger	✅	❌	32d
Use setup-gradle w/ cache-provider: basic to use more permissive MIT …	jack-berg	✅	❌	48d
Add a ConfigProvider callback for runtime instrumentation option changes	jackshirazi	❌	❌	18d
Make StandardComponentId constructor public	brunobat	✅	❌	207d
[DO NOT MERGE] JFR API usage	jhalliday	❌	✅	52d

Waiting on authors

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Commit declarative config schema pojos to git	jack-berg	❌	✅	10d
Merge colliding Prometheus label values	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	10d
Update dependency java to v26	trask	✅	✅	46d
Replace ArrayBlockingQueue with park/unpark for BatchSpanProcessor$Worker	Khepu	✅	✅	31d
Add JSON pretty-print to logging-otlp exporters	lucacavenaghi97	✅	✅	4d
Limit prometheus exemplar labels	harshitrjpt	✅	❌	15d

Waiting on external

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Update junit-framework monorepo - abandoned	app/renovate	❌	❌	17d
Update dependency java to v26	app/renovate	❌	✅	33d
Add fallback endpoint support for OTLP exporters	sridharsurvi1	❌	❌	39d

Diagnostics

PR #8422
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

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=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The last comment is a non-blocking question about release timing and possible future PRs; it doesn’t request a specific code change or required follow-up in this thread.)
route: approver

PR #8413
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=4
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=2 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86C7dSe -> none (The author’s comment is informational and states the test verifies coverage; no explicit follow-up or change request remains in the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Dgb4W -> none (The author is just notifying another team about downstream changes in a different repo; no action is requested or implied for this thread itself.)
route: maintainer

PR #8408
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=10
threads: author=3 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKKVv -> none (The author is only pointing reviewers to where the meaningful changes are and noting that the POJO shape comes from the config in this file; no response or action is requested in the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKMLE -> reviewer (The author replied with an explanation for the suppressed boxed-primitive comparison, so the ball is back in the reviewer’s court to accept that rationale or request changes.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKN7v -> author (The only comment is from the PR author noting they want to investigate whether the Jackson constructor behavior should be changed, so the thread is waiting on the author to follow up or update the code.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPJM -> author (The only comment is from the PR author, and it raises an open investigation/change request (“Should investigate whether we can configure to name the set* instead”), so the next step is on the author.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPwd -> author (The author explicitly says they should look into changing the `toString` behavior and formatting, so the next action is on the author to update the code.)
route: author

PR #8407
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=5
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMfQS -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for justification comments, and the author added them in a follow-up commit; the thread is now back on the reviewer to confirm the explanation is sufficient.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMnfF -> none (The reviewer’s question was answered by the author, and there is no remaining request or required follow-up in the thread.)
route: approver

PR #8377
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=17
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Ab-gj -> external (The reviewer says to wait for the real 7.3.0 release before merging, so progress is blocked on an outside dependency release rather than someone in the repo.)
route: external

PR #8364
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=10
threads: author=3 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhQsA -> author (The approver requested a code/comment change and then a different implementation strategy to reduce allocation overhead, so the PR author needs to update the test/code and respond.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhVsZ -> author (The approver identified a missing code path and requested that collisions from resource, scope, and additionalAttributes also be handled, so the author needs to update the implementation.)
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The author said they will rebase, apply the requested changes, and re-request review once the blocking PR settles, so the next action remains with the author.)
route: author

PR #8362
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8349
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=4
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8270
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=32
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g857PtCt -> none (The reviewer gave a design direction and the author acknowledged it, agreeing to keep this as a follow-up; no one is being asked to act on this thread now.)
route: approver

PR #8261
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=46
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855XQ2Y -> none (The author asked a compatibility question and the approver replied “Fine with me,” so there’s no remaining follow-up or required change in the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855rwM4 -> author (Reviewer asked "What's this?" with no follow-up in-thread, so the author needs to explain or update the change.)
route: author

PR #8256
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=48
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author answered the benefit question with follow-up evidence and is now awaiting reviewer response on whether the conservative cache-provider change is justified.)
route: approver

PR #8240
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=31
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The last comment is from the author saying they still need to figure out why the benchmark metrics are zero and will spend time investigating, so the next step is on the author.)
route: author

PR #8232
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=33
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The blocker is upstream GraalVM support for Java 26, which is outside this repository. The maintainer suggests deferring until that artifact exists, so no repo-local actor can resolve it yet.)
route: external

PR #8197
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=39
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The last update is just a link to an external OpenTelemetry specification issue, and the earlier reviewer explicitly said the PR can wait on that spec discussion. No in-repo follow-up is requested in the thread.)
route: external

PR #8164
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=4
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85z-n0C -> author (A reviewer proposed changing the config key to a guarded development-only naming convention, and the author has not responded or applied it yet; the later approver comment only expresses support, so the implementation follow-up remains with the author.)
route: author

PR #8076
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=18
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85-kTBF -> none (The reviewer’s comment was an optional optimization suggestion, and the author replied that they added it. No explicit follow-up or blocking change remains in the thread.)
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The latest comment is from the author asking how to call `setConfig` from an extension and requesting input on the API shape, so the next action is on the reviewer/maintainer side.)
route: approver

PR #7763
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=207
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer asked why the change was needed, and the author replied with an explanation; the thread is now back in the reviewer’s court to respond or decide whether the rationale is sufficient.)
route: approver

PR #7741
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=52
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The latest comment is an informational external reference to a possible solution, with no explicit requested change or required follow-up in the thread.)
route: approver

PR #6791
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=15
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 जवाब with a source or explanation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnh9 -> author (The approver requested an added test to cover this code path, so the PR author needs to implement that follow-up.)
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The only comment is an FYI linking another PR, with no requested change or reply needed in this thread.)
route: author

Generated 2026-05-24 23:27 UTC