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	✅	✅	2d
Update dependency org.mock-server:mockserver-netty to v6	app/renovate	❌	✅	?
Fix Groovy OpenTelemetrySdk builder loading	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	6d
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	✅	❌	33d
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

Waiting on authors

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
Finish adding OSGi support	jack-berg	✅	✅	1d
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
[DO NOT MERGE] JFR API usage	jhalliday	❌	✅	52d
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=2
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=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment asks @jack-berg for release timing and whether there are plans to add similar OSGi support in related repos, so the PR author needs to जवाब/act.)
route: author

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 is just explaining that the test covers the concern, with no question or requested follow-up for reviewer or author.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Dgb4W -> none (The author only posted an FYI to the approvers about downstream agent changes; it does not request a response or require follow-up in this thread.)
route: maintainer

PR #8408
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=10
threads: author=2 reviewer=2 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKKVv -> none (The author is just directing attention to the build config and explaining the generated POJOs; there’s no explicit request or required follow-up in the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKMLE -> reviewer (The author responded with an explanation for the suppressed boxed-primitive comparison, so the ball is back with the reviewer to accept that explanation or raise further feedback.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKN7v -> reviewer (The author is asking for guidance on whether to change the Jackson constructor/field binding approach, so the next move is reviewer input rather than author implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPJM -> author (The latest comment is from the author proposing an investigation/change to rename the fluent `with*` methods to `set*`, so the ball is back in the author’s court to implement or confirm that adjustment.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPwd -> author (The latest comment is from the PR author and says they should look into changing the `toString` implementation and formatting, so the next step is for the author to make that follow-up change.)
route: author

PR #8407
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=6
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMfQS -> reviewer (The reviewer requested justification comments, and the author added them. The thread is now back in reviewer court to confirm the explanation is sufficient or resolve it.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMnfF -> none (The question about changing the parameter to `Object` was answered by the author, and there is no further 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 the fix depends on waiting for the real 7.3.0 release of bndtools/bnd, so the thread is blocked on an external upstream release rather than a repo change.)
route: external

PR #8364
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=10
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhQsA -> author (The approver requested a code change: add a clarifying comment and revise the implementation to avoid the extra allocation unless a collision occurs. That leaves the next action with the PR author.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhVsZ -> author (The approver is requesting a code change: collision handling should include normalized labels from `resource`, `scope`, and `additionalAttributes`, so the PR author needs to update the implementation.)
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The author says the PR is parked pending issue #8346, so the next step depends on an external blocker rather than on another reviewer or immediate author action in this thread.)
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=33
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g857PtCt -> none (The reviewer explained the API should stay internal for now, and the author acknowledged deferring this to a follow-up PR; no further reply is needed in this thread.)
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 whether zulu would work, and the approver replied “Fine with me,” so the question was answered and no further follow-up is implied.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855rwM4 -> author (An approver asked a direct question about the code change, so the PR author needs to explain or adjust it.)
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 reviewer asked for the benefit; the author answered with supporting evidence and a conclusion that the TOU differ by cache provider, so the ball is back in the reviewer’s court.)
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 latest comment is from the author saying they will investigate why the benchmark metrics are zero, so the next step is on the author to follow up with benchmark results or a fix.)
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 reviewer says the PR is blocked by GraalVM lacking a usable Java 26 artifact, so it cannot proceed until upstream support exists.)
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 reviewer agreed to keep it as a reference implementation, and the author’s last comment points to an external spec issue, so further progress depends on the specification discussion outside this repo.)
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 requested a code change to use the new `pretty_print/development_java` config naming, and no author follow-up is shown yet.)
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 note was an optional optimization suggestion, not a required change, and the author already replied that it was added.)
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The latest comment is from the author and asks for guidance on how an extension can call `setConfig`, so the thread is waiting on reviewer input/answer.)
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?” and the author answered with a rationale, so the thread is back in the reviewer’s court to react to that explanation or continue review.)
route: approver

PR #7741
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=52
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (Reviewer suggested build changes or moving JFR code to avoid animal-sniffer issues; the thread is still unresolved and the author needs to decide and implement one of those options.)
route: author

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 (A reviewer asked whether the limit is based on a specification, so the author needs to जवाब/point to the spec or justify the change.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnh9 -> author (The approver asked the PR author to add a test, so the next step is for the author to implement that requested coverage.)
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The only comment is an FYI linking another PR for the same issue; it does not request any action or follow-up in this thread.)
route: author

Generated 2026-05-25 07:45 UTC