Lukasz Gornicki
Lukasz Gornicki
yup, agree. actually I would suggest we rebuild `codeowners` file here entirely as we added also all binding owners here as well and as result, even if we invite @jonaslagoni...
@smoya proposal is just to add @jonaslagoni and @Pakisan to the list of [core/general maintainers](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/blob/master/CODEOWNERS#L9) (to change the rule that only https://github.com/asyncapi/spec maintainers can be maintainers here in this repo)...
@smoya yeah definitely, lets not keep them waiting
v2 was suppose to be valid against draft 7 see the schema for rc1 when it was still in the same repo that the spec -> https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/blob/2.0.0-rc1/versions/next/schema.json#L3
Then this issue is solved, right?
these are really old schemas, not even of main release but RC instead of fixing them I vote to remove them
maybe flag should be called `validation` and not `messageIdentifier` ? and if not provided, then there is no validation?
@atharvagadkari05 thanks folks for volunteering. We did not yet start the selection process but to be honest @atharvagadkari05, we already got some contributions to both templates from @Krishks369 and he...
there are other templates that are not yet or react, so if you won't find any interesting issue on the [current list](https://github.com/issues?q=is%3Aopen+org%3Aasyncapi+label%3Agsoc+) I will contact respective maintainers if they need...