xibz

https://github.com/cdevents/implementation-wg/issues/5 I believe a new modeling language(s) may help with this, but we may still need some consistency across definitions, specifically enums. ```json { "enum": "value" } ``` ``` class...

As discussed in the SIG, I believe this is an issue with very vague definitions and descriptions of our fields. I do not think we need to merge `source` or...

> be up to the protocol/spec to decide Agreed. That's why I mention that this is probably the wrong repo, but I want to open discussions for this, because this...

> No SDK should declare any specific data fields Except if your company decides on what custom data looks like. SDKs should be able to provide that if needed. >...

@davidB > But if the merge implies moving (and not removing) the distinction via metadata or fields, I don't see the gain. And if it implies having a different "structure",...

Yep! So what is the action item here? I can add that to the changed events, or were we thinking of a design doc or something to see how this...

> 500 "artifacts" in one deployment This was one example, but based on your replies that opens up far more questions, rather than somehow supporting this. I think rather than...

> it's up to the producer to decide Exactly. So why not allow for bulking/bundling if they want to send all test cases?

Talked about this in today's SIG, while I agree it may improve some readability, I dont think it will be that tremendous of an improvement. The subject.changed nesting is only...

One thing we could consider if it makes sense to have something like Kubernetes that would send these events. However, would that make sense to be under CD? Or a...