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	✅	✅	6d

Waiting on approvers

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Use GraphQL to find the existing dashboard issue	trask	✅	✅	0d
Update weekly update	app/renovate	✅	✅	?
Update all patch and minor versions	app/renovate	❌	✅	?
Bound OkHttp sender dispatchers and surface rejections	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	4d
Update dependency org.mock-server:mockserver-netty to v6	app/renovate	❌	✅	?
Fix Groovy OpenTelemetrySdk builder loading	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	8d
Limit exemplar label characters to conform to Prometheus limits	anuq	✅	✅	3d
profiles: improve JFR export example	jhalliday	✅	✅	7d
Make snakeyaml-engine and jackson-databind optional at runtime	zeitlinger	✅	❌	35d
Use setup-gradle w/ cache-provider: basic to use more permissive MIT …	jack-berg	✅	❌	50d
Add a ConfigProvider callback for runtime instrumentation option changes	jackshirazi	❌	❌	20d
Make StandardComponentId constructor public	brunobat	✅	❌	209d
[DO NOT MERGE] JFR API usage	jhalliday	❌	✅	54d

Waiting on authors

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Finish adding OSGi support	jack-berg	✅	✅	4d
Commit declarative config schema pojos to git	jack-berg	❌	✅	12d
Merge colliding Prometheus label values	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	12d
Update dependency java to v26	trask	✅	✅	48d
Replace ArrayBlockingQueue with park/unpark for BatchSpanProcessor$Worker	Khepu	✅	✅	34d
Add JSON pretty-print to logging-otlp exporters	lucacavenaghi97	✅	✅	7d
Limit prometheus exemplar labels	harshitrjpt	✅	❌	17d

Waiting on external

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Update junit-framework monorepo - abandoned	app/renovate	❌	❌	19d
Update dependency java to v26	app/renovate	❌	✅	35d
Add fallback endpoint support for OTLP exporters	sridharsurvi1	❌	❌	41d

Diagnostics

PR #8426
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8424
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8423
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8422
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=4
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=4
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment asks jack-berg for a plan on making similar OSGi PRs in other repos, so the author needs to जवाब/respond.)
route: author

PR #8413
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=6
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=2 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86C7dSe -> none (The author is just clarifying that the test covers the concern and would fail if anything was missed; no follow-up action is requested or implied.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Dgb4W -> none (The author is only giving an FYI about downstream agent changes; no explicit response, review, or repo action is requested in this thread.)
route: maintainer

PR #8408
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=12
threads: author=3 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKKVv -> none (The author is just pointing reviewers to the relevant changes and not asking for a response or follow-up; this is informational only.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKMLE -> reviewer (The author has already explained the suppression and why the boxed-primitive comparison is not a real issue, so the thread is now waiting on reviewer acknowledgment or resolution.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKN7v -> author (The latest comment is by the author and indicates they still need to investigate whether this Jackson construction should be changed, so the follow-up is on the author.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPJM -> author (The author raised an open implementation question about renaming `with*` methods to `set*`, so the next step is on the author to investigate or make the change.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPwd -> author (The latest comment is from the author requesting further changes to the `toString` implementation, so the next action is on the author to update it.)
route: author

PR #8407
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=8
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMfQS -> reviewer (The reviewer requested explanatory comments, and the author replied that they added them, so the thread is back with the reviewer to verify whether the explanation is sufficient.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMnfF -> none (The reviewer’s question was answered by the author, and no further action or requested change remains in the thread.)
route: approver

PR #8377
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=19
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Ab-gj -> external (The approver says to wait for the real 7.3.0 release before merging, so the thread is blocked on an upstream release outside this repository.)
route: external

PR #8364
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=12
threads: author=3 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhQsA -> author (The approver asked for a code/comment change and then proposed a different implementation strategy, so the PR author needs to update the test code before review can continue.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhVsZ -> author (A reviewer/approver pointed out that collision handling should also cover normalized labels from `resource`, `scope`, and `additionalAttributes`, so the PR author needs to update the implementation.)
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The author said they will rebase and apply the requested changes once the blocked dependency (#8346) settles, so the next implementation step belongs to the author.)
route: author

PR #8362
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=3
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8349
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=7
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8270
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=35
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g857PtCt -> none (The reviewer explained the desired direction and the author accepted it, saying this PR would be kept as a follow-up. No further reply or decision is needed in this thread.)
route: approver

PR #8261
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=48
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855XQ2Y -> none (The author asked a question about using zulu, and the approver replied “Fine with me,” so there’s no explicit follow-up requested in the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855rwM4 -> author (An approver asked a direct question about the code ('What's this?'), so the author would need to explain or update the change.)
route: author

PR #8256
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=50
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 and a link suggesting the TOS differ by cache provider; the ball is back in the reviewer’s court to respond or approve.)
route: approver

PR #8240
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=34
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The reviewer asked for benchmark before/after results, and the author replied that they still need to sort out the benchmark metrics and will try to figure it out, so the next action is on the author.)
route: author

PR #8232
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=35
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, so the thread is waiting on an external dependency rather than an in-repo action.)
route: external

PR #8197
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=41
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The PR discussion is waiting on the spec issue the author linked, so the next step happens outside this repository rather than in the thread itself.)
route: external

PR #8164
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=7
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85z-n0C -> author (A reviewer requested a code change to use the proposed `pretty_print/development_java` config naming, and no author response or fix is shown yet.)
route: author

PR #8076
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=20
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85-kTBF -> none (The reviewer only made a non-blocking optimization suggestion, and the author acknowledged it with a follow-up update; no explicit further action is requested in the thread.)
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The latest comment is the author asking how to invoke `setConfig` from an extension, so the thread is waiting on reviewer/maintainer guidance or an API decision.)
route: approver

PR #7763
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=209
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for the rationale, and the author replied with an explanation, so the thread is back in reviewer court for acknowledgment or further review.)
route: approver

PR #7741
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=54
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The latest comment is an optional external suggestion/link with no required change or decision requested, so no one is clearly blocked on a follow-up.)
route: approver

PR #6791
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=17
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnGV -> author (An approver asked whether the change is based on an external specification, so the author needs to respond with that support or adjust the implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnh9 -> author (The approver requested a new test coverage change, so the PR author needs to add it and respond.)
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The only comment is an FYI linking another PR that addresses the same issue; it does not request any action or response from either side.)
route: author

Generated 2026-05-27 13:22 UTC