- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:27:05 -0400
- To: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
- Cc: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Le 2014-06-03 20:11, Rebecca Hauck a écrit : > Hey Gérard, > > To address your concerns, I reorganized css21 and moved all the files > that > were at the root into section subdirectories. Rebecca, I've been doing just that since early this afternoon, with Mercurial !! > I did this in my forked > repo on Github so you could easily review it there before pushing it > [1]. > (Note: If/when I do land these changes, they’ll be pushed directly to > Mercurial rather then merged from Github). > > The commit with all the files moved is here [2]. If you’d like to clone > this repo and browse it locally, you’ll have to clone the > ‘organize-css21' > branch: > > git clone -b organize-css21 git@github.com:rhauck/csswg-test.git > > > Or, if you do not have a public key set up: > > git clone -b organize-css21 https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test.git > > > > Let me know if this looks better to you and if you have any other > suggestions. It’s fairly straightforward to make changes. I have no idea what's going on right now. I'm very much confused now. :( Gérard > > Also, I added the script I used to check that no paths to reference or > support files were broken [3]. I’ll add this to the main repo when I > land > these changes. > > Cheers, > -Rebecca > > > [1] https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test/tree/organize-css21 > [2] > https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test/commit/911ca986fe57ce43075cae6b05d11a1 > 9c55118fb > [3] > https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test/blob/organize-css21/tools/path_checker > .py > > On 6/2/14, 8:04 PM, "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote: > >> Le 2014-06-02 21:41, Rebecca Hauck a écrit : >>> Hi Gérard, >>> >>> [Š] >>> >>>> >>>>> All the locations of files within the repository are maintained by >>>>> people (you really don't want an automated process modifying the >>>>> repository). >>>> >>>> Forgive my question but ... where are *all of my submitted tests* >>>> now >>>> ? >>>> in my local repository? and in http://test.csswg.org/source/ ? >>>> >>>> I ask this because ... >>>> There used to be a /contributors folder (which was in the /src/ >>>> folder) >>>> where all contributors had their folder by their username. Now, such >>>> /contributors folder is only visible, only accessible via mercurial >>>> and >>>> has only a few folders. >>>> I can see right now an >>>> /contributors/gtalbot/submitted >>>> but it is empty and this folder is not viewable, not accessible from >>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/ >>> >>> >>> We are no longer keeping submitted tests in folders by user or >>> company >>> name. We still have a place for work-in-progress that has >>> user/company >>> folders under it, but this is really to support the legacy process >>> when >>> people were pushing directly to Mercurial. >> >> I still use Mercurial. >> >>> Those files needed to be parked >>> somewhere and I chose the name 'work-in-progress' because it was more >>> descriptive than Œincoming¹. We now no longer need special >>> instructions >>> or >>> specific directory names to submit a test. It¹s very simple - if >>> you¹re >>> submitting tests for the Backgrounds & Borders spec (for example), >>> your >>> test goes in the css-backgrounds-3 directory. This makes it very easy >>> to >>> find all of the tests for a given spec in one place rather than being >>> spread across multiple user/company folders. >> >> Understandable. >> >>> It will also make it easier >>> for vendors to import tests for any given spec or set of specs >>> (automated >>> or otherwise) as it eliminates the need to parse the test files to >>> figure >>> out what specs they¹re testing. Implementors really want to access >>> tests >>> by specs and not by who authored them (although we can rely on the >>> metadata for that if needed). >> >> Understandable. >> >>> If you still have contributors folder locally, you likely have some >>> hidden >>> dot files that prevented it from being removed when you updated your >>> local >>> repo. >> >> Yes. After checking the viewing (display) of hidden files, I see >> hidden >> .directory files in all folders of /contributors/gtalbot/ >> >>> It happened to me as well with those pesky .DS_Store files. >> >> .DS_Store files are MacOSX-related, I believe. >> >>> What >>> you see in the web interface at http://test.csswg.org/source/ is >>> accurate >>> and you can safely delete your local contributors folder. >>> >>> And of course as you know, you can always query all of the tests you >>> authored via Shepherd or grep locally if you wish. Your tests were >>> across >>> multiple specs so they got filed under the appropriate spec >>> directories. >> >> Some of my tests were accross multiple specs. Others were not. In any >> case, ~= 260 of my tests were not moved into appropriate spec >> directories. >> >> Eg >> >> http://test.csswg.org/source/css21/background-position-applies-to-001a.xht >> >> is not in >> >> http://test.csswg.org/source/css21/backgrounds/ >> >> ... where I think it should be instead. >> >> >>> If you want the complete list of where everything went, the HG >>> changeset >>> is here [1], but the Github interface actually gives you a little >>> nicer >>> view of the the renaming [2]. Everything you had in >>> /contributors/gtalbot/incoming moved to /work-in-progress/gtalbot >>> [3]. >>> The >>> full description of the changes that were made are at the top of this >>> thread [4]. >>> >>> On somewhat of a side note, since we¹re now in the Github world, any >>> new >>> tests that land in the repo should start with a pull request where >>> they >>> will be reviewed, approved, and merged from there. We are favoring >>> this >>> over using the mailing list for test reviews for reasons I outlined >>> here >>> [5]. >> >> >> I'm sorry. I am still outdated then. >> >> >>> All W3C test submissions are now done this way and it¹s a much >>> cleaner approach than relying on an external system or directory >>> naming >>> convention to reflect test status. There are still a few who push >>> directly to Mercurial, but we are not broadcasting this workflow any >>> longer and and even the veterans are discouraged from doing this if >>> what >>> they¹re submitting needs review. I personally only do so for >>> housekeeping >>> tasks that don¹t require a review. With this new workflow, all tests >>> that >>> are merged into the repo can be assumed reviewed and approved. >>> >>> Now, I realize that we still have many tests unreviewed from before >>> we >>> adopted Github. We can still use Shepherd for tracking these-- either >>> its >>> API or the web interface. However, at some point, we¹ll have to >>> decide >>> how >>> to reconcile these tests as it¹s probably not realistic to expect >>> that >>> thousands of tests will ever be reviewed by humans. Peter and I have >>> had >>> some offline discussions about how to address this, but this is a >>> issue >>> to >>> solve later. >> >> I have ideas on this. >> >>> We have Shepherd in the meantime (luckily). We wanted to make >>> these changes first to move closer to the way the rest of the W3C >>> manages >>> tests. We¹re now in a better position to merge/move into the main W3C >>> web-platform-tests repo [6]. That¹s also a separate discussion that >>> only >>> just began at the last CSSWG F2F and it will certainly pick up again >>> soon. >>> We just had to do this part first. >>> >>> Let me know if you have any other questions & thanks again for your >>> incredible attention to detail. :) >> >> :) >> >> Gérard >> >>> Cheers, >>> -Rebecca >>> >>> >>> [1] http://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/8ed45b2c892f >>> [2] >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/commit/70cfca08acf7fdb1119eb2e7ecbccd91 >>> 15 >>> cd81c7 >>> [3] >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/commit/55ecf8c9c7bfcb67d059ea68dc8041d8 >>> a8 >>> 0cdf7f >>> [4] >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2014May/0000.htm >>> l >>> [5] >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2013Nov/0014.htm >>> l >>> [6] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests >> >> -- >> Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite >> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contr >> ibutions-css21-testsuite.html >> CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html -- Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 00:27:45 UTC