On Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 10:26 PM Heldt-Sheller, Nathan < nathan.heldt-shel...@intel.com wrote:
> Hi Gregg, Mats (changing topic to reflect content), > > Good question and the answer is we definitely prefer things to be logged > in Jira first, and then triaged second. The key things are to: > a) assign to the right maintainer (see Wiki projects listing) > b) assign P1 if the issue causes a CTT failure, else P2 or P3 > c) make sure to fill in required fields and emphasize repro instructions > and attach debug logs whenever possible. > > One problem we face right now is that we have areas of IoTivity that lack > active maintainers, so there is a chance the issue may just sit idle. > However, with our move to Lite, I think we will see a dramatic improvement > both in bug count/technical debt and also in the responsiveness of > maintainer or bug owner. The IoTivity release for Cleveland2 Spec Version > (2.1.1? TBD...) will be the last IoTivity version that is asserted by OCF > to pass all mandatory CTT tests. After that, Lite will take over as both > the first choice for productization, and also the feature-leader for Spec > Implementation (in branches where appropriate). > > As we get closer to the release of Cleveland2 IoTivity and the cut-over to > Dubai version (using Lite) I'll make a more formal/documented announcement > to this effect, but figured I might as well share, since what I've written > above is what OCF agreed on at the OCF technical F2F in Hillsboro two weeks > ago. > Thanks for the heads up. Seems like a good idea - Iotivity is unmaintainable, IMHO. But there are some questions to be addressed. 1. Language bindings. Java, most obviously, but also go, swift, rust, etc. Oh yeah, c++ if you insist. Should they be in-scope? I'm inclined to think not. 2. Extensions. I'm inclined to treat obt and RD as extensions, since they are parasitic on the core protocol, and thus can be implementated in many ways. It's fine to treat lite as the gold standard for core OCF. But maybe lite obt, Rd, etc should be treated as mere examples, maybe even offered in distinct repos. 3. The website, obviously. Already wildly outdated, barely even mentions lite. Hope you have a plan for that. 4. Related, Iotivity has tons of obsolete experimental code that is a real pain in the neck, e.g. remote access, multiple ownership, etc. A wee bit of documentation would go a long way here to help with the transition. Sincerely, Gregg > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#10159): https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/message/10159 Mute This Topic: https://lists.iotivity.org/mt/29609999/21656 Group Owner: iotivity-dev+ow...@lists.iotivity.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
