docs: adapt AsyncAPI version in Solace example

[Polo2]

Description

Solace Binding Protocol has been included with release 2.3.0 of AsyncAPI,
with:

• asyncapi/spec@88abbe0
• feat: add Solace bindings to the list of supported bindings in the spec. spec#666

Thus, specification example should indicate at least this version.

While here, let's favor last released version 2.4.0, as suggested in #135 (comment)

Note:

Following #135 (comment), this PR include a first commit to fix code owners orders.

---

Noticed by working on Solace Protocol support on https://bump.sh/asyncapi

[github-actions]

Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for creating your first pull request. Please check out our contributors guide useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.

[derberg]

@MichaelDavisSolace can you please have a look. The PR makes a lot of sense, but you are the correct codeowner that needs to see this

@Polo2 thanks so much, can I ask you a favour, and could you with this PR also fix https://github.com/asyncapi/bindings/blob/master/CODEOWNERS file by moving line 15 before line 9? Normally it should only be @damaru-inc @CameronRushton called out for the review, but the order in CODEOWNERS is broken

[fmvilas]

May I suggest that you use 2.4.0 for the examples? We released the new version recently.

[Polo2]

@MichaelDavisSolace can you please have a look. The PR makes a lot of sense, but you are the correct codeowner that needs to see this

@Polo2 thanks so much, can I ask you a favour, and could you with this PR also fix https://github.com/asyncapi/bindings/blob/master/CODEOWNERS file by moving line 15 before line 9? Normally it should only be @damaru-inc @CameronRushton called out for the review, but the order in CODEOWNERS is broken

Thanks for your answer @derberg , I've added an initial commit with the requested fix.

May I suggest that you use 2.4.0 for the examples? We released the new version recently.

Sure, while here let's favor last version 👍

[Polo2]

Hi @damaru-inc , it looks like I've dismissed your first approval, sorry about that 🙇
I've only rebase the branch on master before push -f it, no change since your first review, may I ask again for your ✅ please ?

[damaru-inc]

It's fine, thanks!

[Polo2]

cf #135 (comment)

Hi @CameronRushton 👋 ,

Following previous comment from @derberg, I understood something was wrong in code owners orders, and I guess this PR needs your ✅ before being merged.
May I ask you a review here 🙏

[Polo2]

Hello there,

Sorry if I miss something, but what should I do to allow this PR to be merged ?
Looks like 1 approving review is missing, and I don't know who will be this reviewer 🙇

[derberg]

@Polo2 normally @MichaelDavisSolace could merge as he is codeowner of the file that you modified. You could also merge as we have process automated and anyone can merge if all checks/approvals are there in place (just look at the last line of my comment - rtm stands for ready to merge)

but yeah, we had this error there in CODEOWNERS file and in this PR still me or @fmvilas had to approve, sorry about that.

/rtm

[MichaelDavisSolace]

Actually, I've got two github accounts. I use damaru-inc for my personal stuff and for AsyncAPI, and MichaelDavisSolace for Solace work. Sometimes I've made the mistake of committing to AsyncAPI stuff using the latter account. But here, damaru-inc is the codeowner, and I approved it already.