W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:50:25 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: ext Odin HÝrthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F9981AFB970564408FEB7DFCF62D440843BA55A3@PRN-MBX01-4.TheFacebook.com>
On 2/1/13 4:23 AM, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>One of things I wondering about is - after you leave your Fellow
>position [BTW, that's totally wicked so congrats on that!], and Robin
>has moved on to `greener pastures` and Odin has moved on to be CEO of
>Opera - if/when there are problems with GH, who are we gonna' call? Hg,
>despite its shortcomings, is backed by the W3C's crack SysTeam. Do we
>get an equivalent service from GH?

This is a valid concern we need to address. We need to define the
benefits, risks and risk mitigation strategies of moving to GitHub and
decide whether or not this is something that makes sense. I'm going to
start a doc on this that I'll use across WGs and socialize here first.

I'd really like to see input on this from GitHub doubters so we can really
address their concerns.

>> If crowd-sourcing is part of our strategy to get more tests, (and the
>> testing meeting we had this week seems to imply it is), then moving to
>> GitHub is a requirement.
>
>Yes, those are good points and I'm wondering if there really needs to be
>a binary choice here or if there could be advantages to using both. For
>example, set up a skeleton structure on GH and if/when tests are
>submitted, the Test Facilitator could review them and copy the `good
>ones` to Hg.

I have very large doubts about strategies that involve hum a intervention
to sync resources across different versioning systems.

--tobie
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 23:51:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT