W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > July 2005

Re: getting more participation for development

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:44:36 +0900
Message-Id: <1F71C34B-868C-4D3E-84B2-DFD843BE8C3E@w3.org>
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>

Björn,

On 28 Jun 2005, at 08:13, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
> Well, the first question you would need to answer is what people could
> do to help the development of the various QA tools. It seems the  
> better
> we can define specific tasks, the easier to find someone to do it.

Good point. I have taken your list and put in in http://esw.w3.org/ 
topic/SoftwareProjects for others to add potential projects.

> That
> is in fact important for current contributors aswell. I do not  
> currently
> have a good idea what's needed to get a new version out of the  
> door, for
> example.

The current version of the markup validator needs mostly regression  
testing before it can be released. Which means that *development*  
wise, we should be eyeing, as you said, toward making CPAN modules  
that do equivalent things to check. Checklink needs to get faster,  
and sliced up too. The CSS validator,... no comment.

> In general, developers are likely to contribute to the project if that
> helps them to get their jobs done, if they can have some confidence in
> their changes (that they don't break anything),

The qa-dev server was made for a very close goal... letting people  
play, edit, without fear of breaking anything or sending in bad CVS  
commits. The problem of course is that we haven't managed to open it  
to people other than those who have CVS write permissions already.

On a related note, we did have people get our CVS code and develop on  
it. Yan (who localized from a very early 0.7.0dev from HEAD, and went  
on to make a lot of php stuff around it), and the validome people  
(although I don't know how much of their code comes from ours, I  
suspect some of it does)

> ... so I still think
> our main focus should be on testing and modularization; much of the
> above can be achieved without it though, it would just take some time
> for the Validator to adopt certain things. It would be good to  
> complete
> the list above with things that we currently need and other  
> information
> about where we are heading, how we are organized, etc. That would, at
> the very least, allow us to point interested people at something.

Yes.

-- 
olivier
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 07:44:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:45 GMT