- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:32:33 -0400
- To: ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, public-coremob@w3.org
On 6/12/12 6:52 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: > So we have resources on one side and work that needs to be done on > testing on the other, but something is not happening — I'd like to > know why. Please ignore the following if your question is purely rhetorical ... Testing is `hard` and has no `glory`? WRT the former, if testharness.js is considered a blocker, related comments, flames, etc. should be sent to public-test-infra@w3.org (unless James suggests otherwise). WRT the later, Marcos did a good job of creating a cover page for each of the web application packing spec's Test Suites and he acknowledged the Test Contributors (e.g. [1]) so there is at least one way to provide some recognition (although the Contributors could be more prominent like Editors in specs). > It would certainly help if some in the 200+ lurkers were to speak up! > Perhaps it is that there's something missing in making it possible, > easier, simpler, clearer, better incentivised to apply the former to > the latter. I think someone recently mentioned (perhaps at last May's AC meeting) the idea of a "testing tax". For example, a mandatory requirement to attend CoreMob's upcoming f2f meeting could be submitting at least 25 test cases (using testharness.js) to one of the specs this group considers "core". [No pain, no gain and such ;-).] -AB [1]
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 21:33:38 UTC