RE: Subversion vs Mercurial for test suite repository

I think that forming the IG for Test is a strong step in the right direction for the W3C, and agree that in the long run all of the test suites should use the same framework. So, I'm in favor of moving to Mercurial the sooner the better (as long as it does not impact CSS2.1 getting finished :-)).

-John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-css-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-css-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Linss, Peter
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 6:49 PM
> To: public-css-testsuite@w3.org mailing list
> Cc: CSS WG
> Subject: Subversion vs Mercurial for test suite repository
> 
> I'm beginning work on a management system for our test suite repository
> (it's called Shepherd).
> 
> The management system is going to be tightly coupled to the version control
> system, which is currently Subversion.
> 
> The issue here is that W3C has an interest group currently focused on
> building test suite tools for use by all the working groups. It looks like our
> harness, build system and Shepherd are likely going to serve as the
> foundation for the W3C wide set of tools. That IG however, has decided to
> use Mercurial for their test suite repository.
> 
> This means that we either switch our repository over to Mercurial, we keep
> on with a diverging set of testing tools, or I try to build the tools to run on
> both Subversion and Mercurial (which I'd rather not do).
> 
> I think, in the long run, we'd be better served to keep our tools and testing
> infrastructure aligned with the rest of W3C. This means us switching to
> Mercurial. And if we're going to do it, the sooner the better.
> 
> Before I pull the switch and change our repository over, I wanted to get
> some feedback, so, thoughts?
> 
> Peter

Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 15:11:29 UTC