Open Community (TDC) Meeting, Thursday 25 April 2024 about openapi-specification HOT 7 OPEN

TSC: Please feel free to reorder / re-prioritize this list either during the meeting or by editing it before then.

Let's wrap up the issue label maintenance work:

• #3509 (comment)
  • Related to review label: If an issue is open with a clear request, no serious objections and no recent activity, it should be non-controversial to submit a PR for it.
  • I am not asserting that every issue in this state currently really can be treated as "approved for PR", only that it should be clear
  • Since that is not currently the case, we should use the review label (or similar new label) to get the TSC to make a call on issues and either close them or deem them available for PR. It's frustrating to submit a PR on something that looks easy and non-controversial and be told "I don't think we should do this."

Un-blocking OASComply:

• #3732 (new approach to maintaining compatibility while restricting what is needed for compliance)

Other recent PRs that require some thought:

• #3726 (set user expectations regarding format validation, as it causes a lot of problems)
• #3731 (is operationRef a URI that should be properly encoded, or something else?)
• #3727 (a potentially confusing topic)
• #3729 (how to apply maxLength to byte streams, as suggested by the TSC in 2018)
• #3714 (this needs at least one more review, but I think @ralfhandl and I resolved the questions that had me put it on this list originally)

Security PR round-up:

• #3615 (updated in response to feedback from the past week's call)
• #3718 (new clarification) see also:
  • #3630

3.2 Release scope question:

• #3734

from openapi-specification.

@handrews Should we also add #3731 to the agenda?

from openapi-specification.

[EDIT: I was wrong, apparently we need to debate even this.]

@miqui I decided against adding all of the simple ones to the agenda- that's just a URLencoding error, it's either correct or not and shouldn't require discussion. If no one has merged it by Thursday I'll poke people offline. I've just been adding the ones that need discussions.

I posted like 15 PRs this week, there's no way we'd get through all of them in one meeting anyway, and I want to make sure other folks get included (which is why I included the security PR round-up in my agenda comment).

from openapi-specification.

[EDIT: I was wrong, apparently we need to debate even this.]

@miqui I decided against adding all of the simple ones to the agenda- that's just a URLencoding error, it's either correct or not and shouldn't require discussion. If no one has merged it by Thursday I'll poke people offline. I've just been adding the ones that need discussions.

I posted like 15 PRs this week, there's no way we'd get through all of them in one meeting anyway, and I want to make sure other folks get included (which is why I included the security PR round-up in my agenda comment).

Hi @handrews , your point about not adding simple PRs to the agenda is indeed valid. I am extra careful

from openapi-specification.