- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:19:08 +0200
- To: Mihai Balan <mibalan@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Public CSS Test suite mailing list (public-css-testsuite@w3.org)" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "public-test-infra@w3.org" <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On Friday, September 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Mihai Balan wrote: > (cc'ed public-test-infra, but not yet dropping public-css-testsuite) > > The way I see it (and the way I discussed it with Peter), the data will be synchronized to/from gitHub, too. Sure. That still won't benefit other groups, though. > The reason we settled on doing it via Shepherd is that it has the potential to ease the submission of test requests, without giving write access on w3c/csswg-test to everyone. Right now, one can only submit an issue, but not change its labels, milestone, etc. which makes it rather awkward and error-prone to create a gitHub-only process (for now at least). The GH API lets you do that easily. > To go on a full disclosure here: the idea for a test-request process/tool came from developers in my team working on Regions/Shapes/Blending (but I think it might apply to people actually implementing the specs in other companies, too). The goal of it was to allow anyone to submit a new test request with minimal-to-none overhead (if that is possible without even logging in, even better). Anything that would require creating (new) accounts or manually editing issues, would decrease the appeal of such a tool/process. I understand the premises. I just regret the conclusion. :) --tobie
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 15:19:11 UTC