code
code
get it, thanks for all your helps. 🙏
@VishalDamgude any relationship between this PR and #27437? Seems there are some repeated content? cc @jsbucy
Because these are lots of repeated content, could you figure out which one should be landed first? This is a huge work and no maintainer is familiar to the SMTP...
cc @jsbucy Thanks very much for your hard work and response. Then could you help to review this PR also? I think we still need some owner to maintain this...
I think the `split_spans_for_request` should also be deprecated and use the `spawn_upstream_span ` as the unique option to control the tracing. But I still have no time to do that...
Thanks for you contribution to make it more clear. But I am now inclined to deprecate this zipkin field directly in favor of `spawm_upstream_span` in the zipkin. /wait-any
Nope. I am going to do that but haven't started it now. It would be very apprecated if you are interest it and want to take over it.
Thanks and sorry for your time and effort that have paid. > It’s not clear to me why you think my change in this PR, which exists and is mergable...