-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 110
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
AsyncAPI spec v3.0.0 release journal #163
Comments
During today's SIG Meeting @jonaslagoni is gonna suggest a new recurring meeting for those interested in following and/or working on the The creation of a "Working Group" might also be suggested so we have a group of people that will work on the release process of this More details can be found in #157 |
oh wow, this is nice!! |
@smoya and I went down a bit of a rabbit hole that was triggered by referencing behavior, gathered everything under a blog post for visibility on the problem - asyncapi/website#461 This resulted in 3 new issues for both spec and parser-js library. |
Parser-JS implementing the Parser-API (asyncapi/parser-js#401) could be considered a thing now that we would need to adapt the parser for We would like to get a list of pros/cons about adopting the Parser-API, for later on presenting them to the community so we can all make a decision. In order to do some brainstorming so we can get such a list, we (@jonaslagoni and I) have scheduled a public meeting. Therefore we have asked @boyney123 and @alequetzalli to join us as well and they confirmed. Meeting has been scheduled for Monday Dec 6, 8am PST, and it will be included as part of our EDIT 7 Dec 2021: During the meeting, we came out with some pros/cons about adopting Intent-driven API + Parser-API for our parsers. Here is the link (you can also add your thoughts!) https://hackmd.io/AYyrgWMQRXuOKl_VsxUbCA |
I updated asyncapi/parser-js#401 reflecting all collected pros/cons of implementing the Intent-Driven API and Parser-API. So now the question we need to answer asap in there is, should we move forward? |
A final suggestion for the bi-weekly community meeting added and shared: #157 (comment) Suggested starting date Wednesday 19th, 5 PM CET |
The meeting happened and it seems it had a good acceptance because people were very enthusiastic about keeping having more. As a result of it, several issues were created so we can follow up and progress on several topics:
Thanks to @damaru-inc, @aricart, @magicmatatjahu, @boyney123, @dalelane, @jessemenning, @smoya, and @jonaslagoni (and @fmvilas via chat!) for participating, but also to all people connected on all streaming platforms. |
More "Spec 3.0" Meetings happened during last weeks. I won't add a new update every time there is another one but instead, I'm leaving here this link where you can find all of the issues we created per event. They include the agenda, video recordings, live chats and notes. https://github.com/asyncapi/community/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+%22Spec+3.0+Meeting%22 |
I decided to add a migration guide for 3.0: asyncapi/website#660 What this evolves into is hard to say, let's see. However, we needed a place to write all the migration guides down so tools such as converters can be accurately adapted. |
This is unblocking development of Spec v3.0.0 features, and the idea is to release this new |
As the release process for v3 is complete I am gonna close down this issue. |
This issue keeps a journal of the release process for AsyncAPI spec
v3.0.0
.The journal format is gonna be accomplished by making GH comments. There is no particular format on those but feel free to suggest it if you feel it is necessary.
The main goals for such thing are:
There is now an issue where we track progress on v3: asyncapi/spec#691, However this journal will stay here and will be used for tracking events and news regarding this release.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: