> Q2: > shall IoTivity-constrained become an own project by renaming the >constrained project
Yes, that would be my preference. I believe it already is such on JIRA, and so might just require renaming, as you point out. - Kishen Maloor Intel Open Source Technology Center From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Christian Gran <gran at lynxtechnology.com> Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 2:17 AM To: Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us>, "iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org" <iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> Subject: Re: [dev] Jira cleanup Hi, totally agree that we should start with implementing the changes that did not receive any discussion/feedback. I would like to go ahead with these next Monday. Are there any opinions/thoughts about thes questions (nothing received on these so far): Q1: Do we want to create a new Jira project for Node.js named IoTivity-Node? If yes - we should remove the Node.js component Q2: shall IoTivity-constrained become an own project by renaming the constrained project or shall IoTivity-constrained become a component in the IoTivity project? Q3: Any objections about removing the fields listed there: https://wiki.iotivity.org/jira_proposed_changes reasoning: when issuing a new ticket most of the fields are not applicable and will be left to their default values. This makes the handling of the ticket more difficult as it has to much noise/misleading data in it. Anyway - I recdommend to have a look at the two wiki pages and send me comments/suggestions about these. Please always hand the salt with the pepper - so if you have some criticism please also state an alternate solution/proposal :-) https://wiki.iotivity.org/jira_proposed_changes https://wiki.iotivity.org/jira_how_to_use thanks Christian On 28 Mar 2017, at 16:19, Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us> wrote: On 03/27/2017 11:31 PM, Christian Gran wrote: Hi, is there still something that needs to be changed here? https://wiki.iotivity.org/jira_proposed_changes https://wiki.iotivity.org/jira_how_to_use thanks Christian I'd like to see the "proposed changes" page implemented, doesn't mean we have to be completely done with the other discussions. Were there answers for the bits with questions? (mainly whether to have any presence of iotivity-constrained and iotivity-node). The updated/added components would be helpful in categorizing.
