- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:30:24 +0100
- To: public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
On 04/04/17 18:30, Mike Pennisi wrote: > I think it GitHub.com issues would be ideal here? For those less > familiar: they > can provide the same functionality as the referenced spreadsheet. That > includes > > - They can be marked "complete" > - They can be assigned to multiple people [1] > - They can communicate overall progress towards a milestone [2] > > But they are improvements in a few important ways. > > - They support conversations > - They are more closely tied to the tests themselves (can be > referenced/closed > via pull request/commit) [3] > - They support documenting incremental progress [4] > - They make changes (e.g. re-assignment) visible > > Though maybe most important of all: they are far more discoverable. I don't > think potential contributors stand much of a chance of finding a > spreadsheet > maintained by mailing list participants. On the other hand, when they see > relevant commits that reference a GitHub.com milestone, or they see a > developer > making comments in an issue thread, they'll know where to go. FWIW I think the main disadvantage of this is that it's hard to get an overview; you have to dig into multiple issues rather than being able to get a single-page summary. I agree the spreadsheet isn't ideal though (evidence: there are at least two and no one is keeping them up to date. That might also be a problem with issues though).
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 18:30:52 UTC