[Instrumentation.AWSLambda] Request release of 1.1.0-beta2, reword CHANGELOG

[Oberon00]

@open-telemetry/dotnet-contrib-maintainers: This is a request for release of version 1.1.0-beta2 of the OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWSLambda for which I am an owner.

Blocked by #593✅, #608✅, #622✅

[Kielek]

As you have a plan to bump major version, can we make the change described here #196 (comment) before the release?

[Oberon00]

@Kielek I didn't realize only the AWS packages still had Contrib in the name. Yes, if the goal is to change every package to remove Contrib, then we should do that. I thought this was only about the Activity Source name originally. EDIT: I created #593 which should be merged before this.

[Oberon00]

After #622 is merged, this is ready to be merged (though there will be conflicts in the CHANGELOG)

[Oberon00]

This is now finally actually ready from my perspective, I know of no open points.

[utpilla]

@Oberon00 @rypdal I noticed that the AWSLambda project uses 1.1.0 version of OTel SDK. Is this intentional? If not, you could update this to the latest version of OTel SDK like some of the other projects in the repo: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contrib/blob/main/src/OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Wcf/OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Wcf.csproj#L11

[Kielek]

@utpilla, please check #580.

[Oberon00]

@utpilla

I noticed that the AWSLambda project uses 1.1.0 version of OTel SDK. Is this intentional?

Hi, yes my idea is to only upgrade the OpenTelemetry SDK when there is a new feature we need. As the SDK is guaranteed to be backward-compatible, this should not prevent users from using any newer OpenTelemetry SDK, so I see no reason to upgrade (I'm also not blocking #580, but I don't think it's necessary to merge it before this release is made).

[utpilla]

@Oberon00 My apologies! I just realized after merging this PR that the package name does not follow the naming convention that we follow.

Could you please rename the version from 1.1.0-beta2 -> 1.1.0-beta.2?

This is required because the build system sorts them alphabetically when retrieving packages, therefore, later in future 1.1.0-beta10 would be seen older than 1.1.0-beta9.

[Oberon00]

Hi, this follows the same convention as the beta1, but since we renamed the whole package it would of course be a good opportunity to also fix this versioning. You mean the CHANGELOG heading? I think that's the only part where we specify a version (and I have to double-check the unit test, I think I regex-match somewhere there).

[utpilla]

You mean the CHANGELOG heading?

Yes, that's the only thing to change.