Isn’t datasync a feature of AeroGear? Those this mean every feature is going to have it’s own JIRA? What is the rule?

On 11 Nov,2014, at 10:20 , Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm fine with making an AGDATASYNC or AGSYNC JIRA instance if that is what is agreed upon. 

On 11 November 2014 08:00, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
instead of storing all sync items underneath the AEROGEAR instance, we could have a AGDATASYNC JIRA instance. I think this makes it nicer to organize, especially with releases. That's what we did with AGPUSH for the 'push feature', which obviously is available across platforms.

-Matthias

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,

we have created JIRA tasks for the data sync roadmaps [1][2]. 

While creating them we noticed that we are using different component names in JIRA for the our projects:

AEROGEAR:  
Uses 'data-sync' as the component name:

AGIOS
Uses 'sync' as the component name:

AGDROID
Uses 'datasync' as the component name:

AGJS
Uses 'data-sync' as the component name:

I would be nice to makes these consistent across the projects. Let me know which you prefer and I'll make the changes needed. 

I'm personally +1 for 'datasync'


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev