- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:06:41 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 10/28/2010 06:33 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>> On this note, is it indeed acceptable to use current beta or dev >>> builds of Chrome for the IR? > ... >> >> If the entire source is available along with build instructions >> such that a member of the public can build a binary identical >> to the one you used for testing, then, yes. > > Hold on. I thought we had some criteria along the lines of "sort of > shippable" (relaxed from "actually shipped") and in particular wanted to > exclude special test builds, nightlies, etc, no? I'm responding to the question of availability. I think available from source is adequately available, if it's reasonably accessible. If I have to spend three days investigating your build system or digging through your blog entries in order to make it work, then I don't consider that accessible. But if I can set up a build environment and kick off a build in an hour or two, and that build will be identical to the one you used for testing, I think that's adequately accessible, though certainly not ideal. Granted, I don't understand why the Chrome team would release a source package but not a binary for their test build. > I haven't sorted out what the "beta" and "dev" labeling actually means > in Chrome's case, but based on my weak understanding it seems like "dev" > would not be acceptable and "beta" might be. See Peter's email for clarification on that point. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 23:07:19 UTC