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	✅	✅	1d

Waiting on approvers

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
docs: clarify View attribute filtering interaction with Exemplars	kyyril	✅	✅	0d
Update dependency org.mock-server:mockserver-netty to v6	app/renovate	❌	✅	?
Fix Groovy OpenTelemetrySdk builder loading	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	2d
profiles: improve JFR export example	jhalliday	✅	✅	1d
Use setup-gradle w/ cache-provider: basic to use more permissive MIT …	jack-berg	✅	❌	45d
Add a ConfigProvider callback for runtime instrumentation option changes	jackshirazi	❌	❌	15d
Make StandardComponentId constructor public	brunobat	✅	❌	204d

Waiting on authors

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Finish adding OSGi support	jack-berg	✅	✅	0d
Commit declarative config schema pojos to git	jack-berg	❌	✅	7d
Merge colliding Prometheus label values	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	7d
Limit exemplar label characters to conform to Prometheus limits	anuq	✅	✅	3d
Make snakeyaml-engine and jackson-databind optional at runtime	zeitlinger	✅	❌	29d
Update dependency java to v26	trask	✅	✅	43d
Replace ArrayBlockingQueue with park/unpark for BatchSpanProcessor$Worker	Khepu	✅	✅	28d
Add JSON pretty-print to logging-otlp exporters	lucacavenaghi97	✅	✅	1d
[DO NOT MERGE] JFR API usage	jhalliday	❌	✅	49d
Limit prometheus exemplar labels	harshitrjpt	✅	❌	12d

Waiting on external

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Update junit-framework monorepo - abandoned	app/renovate	❌	❌	14d
Update dependency java to v26	app/renovate	❌	✅	30d
Add fallback endpoint support for OTLP exporters	sridharsurvi1	❌	❌	36d

Workflow failure tracking issues

Issue	Comments	Updated
Workflow failed: Sonatype Guide dependency audit (daily) (#18)	0	2026-05-21

Diagnostics

PR #8419
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author says the Javadoc has been updated and asks the reviewer to confirm it looks good, so the next action is for the reviewer to review/respond.)
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=0
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The reviewer/outsider pointed out a remaining OSGi limitation, and the PR author replied that it should be optional and said they will fix it. The next step is for the author to make that change.)
route: author

PR #8413
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=2 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86C7dSe -> none (The author is just explaining the test’s coverage; no reviewer question or requested change is present, so no follow-up is needed.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Dgb4W -> none (The author only left an FYI note to another team with a reference link; it does not request a change, review, or other follow-up in this thread.)
route: maintainer

PR #8408
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=7
threads: author=2 reviewer=2 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKKVv -> reviewer (The author is clarifying that this file is the part to review and no further author-side change is requested in the thread, so the reviewer needs to continue the review.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKMLE -> none (The author is just explaining why the suppressed boxed-primitive comparison is safe; there’s no request for review or follow-up action.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKN7v -> reviewer (The latest comment is the author asking whether Jackson’s constructor/field-injection approach should be changed, so the next response is needed from a reviewer or maintainer.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPJM -> author (The author raised a follow-up change to investigate renaming the `with*` methods to `set*`, so the next step is on the author to evaluate and implement that if needed.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPwd -> author (The author is the latest speaker and explicitly says they should look into changing the `toString` implementation and formatting, so the next action is on the author.)
route: author

PR #8407
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=2
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMfQS -> reviewer (The reviewer requested justification comments, and the author says they added one; the ball is back in the reviewer’s court to inspect and resolve/approve the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMnfF -> none (The author answered the question with an explanation, and no further change or reviewer input is requested in the thread.)
route: approver

PR #8377
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=14
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Ab-gj -> external (The approver 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=7
threads: author=3 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhQsA -> author (The approver asked for a code comment and then proposed changing the test strategy to avoid extra allocation, so the author still needs to update the test/code.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhVsZ -> author (The approver pointed out a required gap in the fix: collisions need to account for normalization from `resource`, `scope`, and `additionalAttributes`, not just `attributes`. The thread is unresolved and the code change still needs to be updated by the PR author.)
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The author said they will make the requested fixes, rebase once #8346 settles, and re-request review, so the next action is on the author.)
route: author

PR #8362
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=3
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86C-hHG -> author (The comment is a code-style suggestion aimed at the test data setup, so the PR author would need to update the test (or reply if they disagree); no reviewer action is needed right now.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86C-jIw -> author (A reviewer/nit requested a variable rename (`short` to `short_attr`); the author would need to make that code change if they choose to address it.)
route: author

PR #8349
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8270
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=29
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g857PtCt -> author (The reviewer proposed deferring this work, and the author accepted that plan by saying they’ll keep this as a follow-up/recreate it later, so the remaining work is on the author.)
route: author

PR #8261
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=43
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855XQ2Y -> none (The author asked whether zulu would work, and the approver replied "Fine with me," so the question was answered and no follow-up action is implied.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855rwM4 -> author (The reviewer asked a direct question about the code (`What's this?`), so the PR author needs to explain or address it.)
route: author

PR #8256
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=45
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author answered the benefit question and followed up with evidence that the terms differ by cache provider, so the next step is for the reviewer/approver to react to that clarification.)
route: approver

PR #8240
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=28
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment is from the author saying they will investigate why the benchmark metrics are zero, in response to the reviewers’ request for before/after benchmark results. The thread is still waiting on the author to follow up with usable benchmark data.)
route: author

PR #8232
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=30
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The blocker is upstream GraalVM support for Java 26, not a repo-local change; the PR should wait until that external artifact exists.)
route: external

PR #8197
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=36
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The author’s latest comment points to an open spec issue in opentelemetry-specification, and the PR discussion is effectively waiting on that cross-repo decision rather than an in-repo code change.)
route: external

PR #8164
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85z-n0C -> author (A reviewer requested a code change to add a guardrail/naming convention, and although another approver agreed with the idea, the suggested change still needs to be implemented by the PR author.)
route: author

PR #8076
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=15
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85-kTBF -> none (The reviewer only suggested an optional TODO for a later optimization, and the author already replied "added"; this is informational with no required follow-up.)
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The latest comment is from the author asking for guidance on how an extension can call `setConfig`, so the thread is waiting on reviewer/input rather than author implementation.)
route: approver

PR #7763
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=204
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for the rationale, and the author answered; the thread now needs reviewer follow-up to decide whether the explanation is sufficient or to approve/continue review.)
route: approver

PR #7741
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=49
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment proposes an external JFR bridge and explicitly asks the author to react with "Let me know what you think," so the author is the one expected to respond next.)
route: author

PR #6791
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=12
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnGV -> author (The approver is asking for a specification/source, so the PR author needs to जवाब/justify the change or provide the reference.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnh9 -> author (The approver requested an additional test, so the PR author needs to implement it and update the thread.)
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The only comment is an informational FYI linking a related PR, with no requested change or response needed in this thread.)
route: author

Generated 2026-05-21 23:28 UTC