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	✅	✅	3d
Update dependency org.mock-server:mockserver-netty to v6	app/renovate	❌	✅	?
Finish adding OSGi support	jack-berg	✅	✅	3d
Fix Groovy OpenTelemetrySdk builder loading	ADITYA-CODE-SOURCE	✅	✅	7d
Limit exemplar label characters to conform to Prometheus limits	anuq	✅	✅	3d
profiles: improve JFR export example	jhalliday	✅	✅	6d
Make snakeyaml-engine and jackson-databind optional at runtime	zeitlinger	✅	❌	34d
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

Waiting on authors

PR	Author	CI	Conflicts	Activity
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	✅	✅	33d
Add JSON pretty-print to logging-otlp exporters	lucacavenaghi97	✅	✅	6d
[DO NOT MERGE] JFR API usage	jhalliday	❌	✅	54d
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=3
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=3
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The latest comment asks for release timing and whether related PRs are planned, which requires a maintainer/reviewer to answer; no author action is requested yet.)
route: approver

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 only explains that the test line covers the relevant case; there’s no explicit request or required follow-up in the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86Dgb4W -> none (The author’s comment is just an FYI about downstream changes in another repo and doesn’t ask for a response or change in this thread.)
route: maintainer

PR #8408
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=12
threads: author=3 reviewer=0 external=0 none=2 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKKVv -> none (The author is just directing reviewers to the relevant generated-pojo changes and explaining the build file’s role; no follow-up action is requested in the thread.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKMLE -> none (The author only explained that the flagged boxed comparison is intentionally suppressed and safe because a later equals check follows; no explicit follow-up or requested change is stated.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKN7v -> author (The only comment is from the PR author, who says they want to see if they can/should change the Jackson constructor behavior. That indicates the author still needs to decide and likely implement a follow-up.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPJM -> author (The author’s comment raises an implementation follow-up (“Should investigate whether we can configure to name the set* instead”), so the next step is for the author to investigate or change the generated method naming.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CKPwd -> author (The author’s latest comment identifies problems with the `toString` output and says they should look into fixing the formatting/configuration, so the next step is on the author to implement changes.)
route: author

PR #8407
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=7
threads: author=0 reviewer=2 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMfQS -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for justification comments, and the author says they added them in a commit, so the change is back in the reviewer’s court for confirmation/resolution.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMnfF -> reviewer (The author answered the reviewer’s question about why the type was changed to `Object`, so the thread is back in the reviewer’s court to accept the explanation or continue review.)
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 (Merge is blocked waiting for the real bnd 7.3.0 release, which is 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 requested a code comment and suggested changing the test strategy to avoid extra allocation, so the PR author needs to update the test implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhVsZ -> author (The approver flagged a required gap in the fix: collision handling should include normalized labels from resource, scope, and additionalAttributes, so the PR author needs to update the implementation.)
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The author explicitly says they will rebase, apply the requested changes, and re-request review once the blocking issue settles.)
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=6
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver

PR #8270
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=34
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g857PtCt -> none (The reviewer deferred this work to a follow-up PR, and the author acknowledged that plan. No further reply or change is requested in this thread itself.)
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 if zulu was acceptable, and the approver replied "Fine with me," so the question was answered and no further follow-up is implied.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g855rwM4 -> author (The approver asked for clarification with "What's this?", so the author needs to जवाब/clarify what the code is.)
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 author answered the benefit question and provided evidence that the TOU differ by cache provider, so the ball is back with the reviewer to decide whether the rationale is sufficient.)
route: approver

PR #8240
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=33
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The last comment is from the author, and it says they will investigate why the benchmark metrics are zero before they can provide the requested before/after results.)
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 reviewer says the PR is blocked by an upstream GraalVM issue: Java 26 artifacts are not available for the setup action, so the failing CI depends on external support rather than a repo-local change.)
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 was agreed to stay as a reference implementation while the spec discussion happens, and the author’s latest comment just points to the external spec issue, so follow-up is blocked outside this repository.)
route: external

PR #8164
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=6
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85z-n0C -> author (A reviewer requested adding the `pretty_print/development_java` guardrail, and the only follow-up comment was another reviewer agreeing; the author still needs to make the code change.)
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 made an optional optimization suggestion, and the author already responded with “added,” so no further action is implied for this thread.)
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The latest comment is the author asking how an extension should call `setConfig`, so the thread is waiting on reviewer/maintainer input about the API shape or access path.)
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 answered; the thread is now back in the reviewer’s court for follow-up review or approval.)
route: approver

PR #7741
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=54
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The last substantive guidance was from the reviewer suggesting the author disable animal sniffer, split JFR into a separate module, or use a separate source set; the author has not responded or implemented a follow-up yet.)
route: author

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 (The reviewer is asking whether the change is based on a specification, so the PR author needs to जवाब with the source or rationale.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85aSnh9 -> author (The approver requested a new test to cover the change, so the next step is for the PR author to add it.)
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The only comment is an FYI linking a separate PR; it does not request any response or action in this thread.)
route: author

Generated 2026-05-27 03:17 UTC