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
Deprecate opentracing shim public API	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	0d
Update dependency org.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-gradle-plugin to v2.3.21	app/renovate	❌	✅	60d

Waiting on approvers

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Update dependency com.squareup.wire:wire-bom to v6.4.0	app/renovate	✅	✅	?
Update spotless packages to v8.5.1	app/renovate	✅	✅	0d
Fix Groovy OpenTelemetrySdk builder loading	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	❌	✅	0d
Group renovate minor version updates in weekly	jack-berg	✅	✅	1d
OSGi support and tests for OTLP exporters	jack-berg	✅	✅	0d
Remove deprecated ExtendedAttributes and related code	jack-berg	✅	✅	3d
Remove view file config mechanism	jack-berg	✅	✅	3d
Limit exemplar label characters to conform to Prometheus limits	anuq	✅	✅	0d
profiles: improve JFR export example	jhalliday	✅	✅	15d
Update prometheusServerVersion to v1.6.1	app/renovate	❌	✅	?
Move otlp utilities to otlp package	jack-berg	✅	✅	3d
Move delta record/collect coordination from instrument to series level	jack-berg	✅	✅	3d
Protect against index out of bounds exception	jack-berg	❌	✅	22d
Make snakeyaml-engine and jackson-databind optional at runtime	zeitlinger	✅	❌	24d
Use setup-gradle w/ cache-provider: basic to use more permissive MIT …	jack-berg	✅	❌	39d
Add JSON pretty-print to logging-otlp exporters	lucacavenaghi97	✅	✅	64d
Add a ConfigProvider callback for runtime instrumentation option changes	jackshirazi	❌	❌	9d
Make StandardComponentId constructor public	brunobat	✅	❌	198d
[DO NOT MERGE] JFR API usage	jhalliday	❌	✅	43d

Waiting on authors

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Commit declarative config schema pojos to git	jack-berg	❌	✅	1d
Merge colliding Prometheus label values	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	1d
Update dependency java to v26	trask	✅	✅	37d
Replace ArrayBlockingQueue with park/unpark for BatchSpanProcessor$Worker	Khepu	✅	✅	23d
Limit prometheus exemplar labels	harshitrjpt	✅	❌	6d

Waiting on external

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Update junit-framework monorepo	app/renovate	❌	❌	8d
Update dependency java to v26	app/renovate	❌	✅	24d
Add fallback endpoint support for OTLP exporters	sridharsurvi1	❌	❌	30d

Diagnostics

PR #8411
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8409
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8408
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=3 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKKVv -> none (The author is just directing reviewers to the real source of the generated shape and does not request any follow-up action in this thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKMLE -> reviewer (The author has responded with an explanation for the suppressed warning, so the ball is back in the reviewer’s court to accept the clarification or continue the review.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKN7v -> author (The author’s latest comment says they want to check whether this should be changed, which points to the author investigating/implementing a follow-up rather than waiting on reviewer input.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPJM -> author (The author flagged a naming issue and said it should be investigated, so the next step is for the author to check whether the methods can be configured as `set*`.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPwd -> author (The latest comment is from the PR author, and it identifies a toString issue that should be investigated and changed; the thread is unresolved and needs author follow-up.)
route: author

PR #8407
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMfQS -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for explanatory comments, and the author says they added them in a follow-up commit, so the thread is back in reviewer court.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMnfF -> none (The question was answered by the author with a rationale for using `Object`, and no further action or follow-up was requested in the thread.)
route: approver

PR #8406
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8401
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The remaining autoconfigure item was explicitly deferred to a follow-up PR, and the latest reply says it will be reviewed again there; nothing is required on this thread now.)
route: approver

PR #8395
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=3
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8394
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=3
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8377
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=8
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 the thread is blocked on an upstream release outside this repository.)
route: external

PR #8373
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author reported they reverted the Graal workaround as requested and only noted a separate CI issue, so the ball is back in the reviewer/maintainer court to confirm the change.)
route: maintainer

PR #8364
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhQsA -> author (The approver requested code changes: add a clarifying comment and adjust the implementation to avoid extra allocation unless a collision occurs.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhVsZ -> author (The approver identified a missing case and is asking for a code change, so the PR author needs to update the implementation.)
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The author says the PR is parked pending #8346 before they can rebase and apply the requested changes, so the thread is blocked on an external dependency.)
route: author

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

PR #8349
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=15
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author is asking profiling maintainers/spec owners for guidance and decisions on spec changes, so the next action is with reviewers maintainers.)
route: approver

PR #8335
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8326
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=3
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author explicitly asks the java-approvers to take a look, so the next step is on reviewers/maintainers to review or respond.)
route: approver

PR #8313
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=3
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g858njQs -> none (The author is explaining the rationale for the current code structure, with no change request or question for anyone to act on.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86AVPvC -> reviewer (The author has already responded with an implementation change, so the thread is back in reviewer court for a follow-up review.)
route: approver

PR #8294
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=22
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8270
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=24
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g857PtCt -> none (The reviewer raised a design concern, and the author acknowledged the direction and agreed to keep it as a follow-up; no further response is requested in this thread.)
route: approver

PR #8261
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=37
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 answered “Fine with me,” so there’s no remaining follow-up in the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855rwM4 -> author (A reviewer asked “What’s this?” on a specific test-file line, so the PR author needs to explain or adjust the change.)
route: author

PR #8256
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=39
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 rationale plus a link indicating the terms differ; the thread is now back for reviewer evaluation.)
route: approver

PR #8240
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=23
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment is by the author saying they will figure out why the benchmark metrics are zero, so the next step is on the author to investigate and provide the requested results.)
route: author

PR #8232
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=24
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 anything in this repository, so the thread can’t move forward until that external artifact exists.)
route: external

PR #8197
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=30
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The author linked the open spec discussion, and the reviewer already said keeping this PR as a reference implementation was fine, so the next step depends on the upstream spec issue rather than action inside this repo.)
route: external

PR #8164
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=64
threads: author=0 reviewer=2 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85z-n0C -> reviewer (An approver raised a requested change and explicitly asked the maintainer/reviewer groups for thoughts, so the thread is waiting on reviewer-side input before the author acts.)
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author explicitly says they are waiting for approver feedback, so the next move is on a reviewer/approver.)
route: approver

PR #8076
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=9
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85-kTBF -> none (The reviewer’s note was an optional optimization suggestion, and the author replied “added,” indicating the thread was addressed with no further action requested.)
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The latest comment is the author asking for guidance on how to call `setConfig` from an extension, so the next action is for a reviewer/maintainer to answer or suggest the SDK API approach.)
route: approver

PR #7924
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=60
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: maintainer

PR #7763
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=198
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for the reason behind the change, and the author has replied with an explanation; the thread is now back in the reviewer’s court to assess that answer.)
route: approver

PR #7741
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=43
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The last comment only shares an external reference and doesn’t request a change or reply, so no follow-up is required in-thread.)
route: approver

PR #6791
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=6
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 respond with the source or rationale.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnh9 -> author (The approver requested a new test coverage change, so the next step is for the PR author to add it.)
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The comment only points to another PR that addresses the same issue; it is informational and does not request follow-up from anyone.)
route: author

Generated 2026-05-16 12:29 UTC