Conversation
We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for all the commit author(s) or Co-authors. If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google. ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## v0.27.x #2055 +/- ##
==========================================
Coverage 83.04% 83.05%
+ Complexity 2250 2249 -1
==========================================
Files 319 319
Lines 10532 10526 -6
Branches 1049 1048 -1
==========================================
- Hits 8746 8742 -4
+ Misses 1447 1446 -1
+ Partials 339 338 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@spkrka could you please sign the CLA (#2055 (comment)) so I can merge this? |
I don't understand what's wrong with the CLA. When I visit https://cla.developers.google.com/clas it says:
|
This is the commit from the original PR: 8da5466 Then it was merged into master by @nilebox as this commit: eab6382 I don't know why the github merge operation caused that kind of re-write to the commit, and I don't know how to resolve it. |
PR commit:
Master commit:
|
I can confirm that's the issue with CLA. |
@spkrka also please be aware that this PR just cherry-picks a commit from |
Yes, I am ok with you rewriting the git history (This was only removing code anyway, so it's not like my change is particularly noteworthy) |
Fixes census-instrumentation#2045 This will reduce GC pressure since the VM will not call Finalizer.register() when creating Span objects. Since this method is synchronized on a static lock it can be a source of contention. It also avoids contention on the same lock when running runFinalizer() as part of GC (cherry picked from commit eab6382)
CLAs look good, thanks! ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
I'm making a patch 0.27.1 with #2043 cherrypicked into V0.27.x. I couldn't push directly to v0.27.x because of protected branch rules.