- From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:35:04 +0000
- To: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- CC: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 6/3/14, 5:27 PM, "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote: >Le 2014-06-03 20:11, Rebecca Hauck a écrit : >> Hey Gérard, >> >> To address your concerns, I reorganized css21 and moved all the files >> that >> were at the root into section subdirectories. > >Rebecca, > >I've been doing just that since early this afternoon, with Mercurial !! My apologies. I was under the impression that you didn’t have the time to move things around and I offered to do it instead. No changes have been submitted - this is only a branch in my fork for preview. If you prefer to do this to make these changes yourself, it’s no problem. It didn’t take me that long to do. > > >> I did this in my forked >> repo on Github so you could easily review it there before pushing it >> [1]. >> (Note: If/when I do land these changes, they’ll be pushed directly to >> Mercurial rather then merged from Github). >> >> The commit with all the files moved is here [2]. If you’d like to clone >> this repo and browse it locally, you’ll have to clone the >> ‘organize-css21' >> branch: >> >> git clone -b organize-css21 git@github.com:rhauck/csswg-test.git >> >> >> Or, if you do not have a public key set up: >> >> git clone -b organize-css21 https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test.git >> >> >> >> Let me know if this looks better to you and if you have any other >> suggestions. It’s fairly straightforward to make changes. > >I have no idea what's going on right now. I'm very much confused now. :( Again I apologize if I caused confusion. It certainly wasn’t my intention and nothing is different than it was yesterday. I just wanted to make sure to address the issues you brought up yesterday and had a little time today to revisit this. Let me know what you’d like to do. Cheers, -Rebecca > >Gérard > >> >> Also, I added the script I used to check that no paths to reference or >> support files were broken [3]. I’ll add this to the main repo when I >> land >> these changes. >> >> Cheers, >> -Rebecca >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test/tree/organize-css21 >> [2] >> >>https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test/commit/911ca986fe57ce43075cae6b05d11 >>a1 >> 9c55118fb >> [3] >> >>https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test/blob/organize-css21/tools/path_check >>er >> .py >> >> On 6/2/14, 8:04 PM, "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote: >> >>> Le 2014-06-02 21:41, Rebecca Hauck a écrit : >>>> Hi Gérard, >>>> >>>> [Š] >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> All the locations of files within the repository are maintained by >>>>>> people (you really don't want an automated process modifying the >>>>>> repository). >>>>> >>>>> Forgive my question but ... where are *all of my submitted tests* >>>>> now >>>>> ? >>>>> in my local repository? and in http://test.csswg.org/source/ ? >>>>> >>>>> I ask this because ... >>>>> There used to be a /contributors folder (which was in the /src/ >>>>> folder) >>>>> where all contributors had their folder by their username. Now, such >>>>> /contributors folder is only visible, only accessible via mercurial >>>>> and >>>>> has only a few folders. >>>>> I can see right now an >>>>> /contributors/gtalbot/submitted >>>>> but it is empty and this folder is not viewable, not accessible from >>>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/ >>>> >>>> >>>> We are no longer keeping submitted tests in folders by user or >>>> company >>>> name. We still have a place for work-in-progress that has >>>> user/company >>>> folders under it, but this is really to support the legacy process >>>> when >>>> people were pushing directly to Mercurial. >>> >>> I still use Mercurial. >>> >>>> Those files needed to be parked >>>> somewhere and I chose the name 'work-in-progress' because it was more >>>> descriptive than Œincoming¹. We now no longer need special >>>> instructions >>>> or >>>> specific directory names to submit a test. It¹s very simple - if >>>> you¹re >>>> submitting tests for the Backgrounds & Borders spec (for example), >>>> your >>>> test goes in the css-backgrounds-3 directory. This makes it very easy >>>> to >>>> find all of the tests for a given spec in one place rather than being >>>> spread across multiple user/company folders. >>> >>> Understandable. >>> >>>> It will also make it easier >>>> for vendors to import tests for any given spec or set of specs >>>> (automated >>>> or otherwise) as it eliminates the need to parse the test files to >>>> figure >>>> out what specs they¹re testing. Implementors really want to access >>>> tests >>>> by specs and not by who authored them (although we can rely on the >>>> metadata for that if needed). >>> >>> Understandable. >>> >>>> If you still have contributors folder locally, you likely have some >>>> hidden >>>> dot files that prevented it from being removed when you updated your >>>> local >>>> repo. >>> >>> Yes. After checking the viewing (display) of hidden files, I see >>> hidden >>> .directory files in all folders of /contributors/gtalbot/ >>> >>>> It happened to me as well with those pesky .DS_Store files. >>> >>> .DS_Store files are MacOSX-related, I believe. >>> >>>> What >>>> you see in the web interface at http://test.csswg.org/source/ is >>>> accurate >>>> and you can safely delete your local contributors folder. >>>> >>>> And of course as you know, you can always query all of the tests you >>>> authored via Shepherd or grep locally if you wish. Your tests were >>>> across >>>> multiple specs so they got filed under the appropriate spec >>>> directories. >>> >>> Some of my tests were accross multiple specs. Others were not. In any >>> case, ~= 260 of my tests were not moved into appropriate spec >>> directories. >>> >>> Eg >>> >>> >>>http://test.csswg.org/source/css21/background-position-applies-to-001a.x >>>ht >>> >>> is not in >>> >>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css21/backgrounds/ >>> >>> ... where I think it should be instead. >>> >>> >>>> If you want the complete list of where everything went, the HG >>>> changeset >>>> is here [1], but the Github interface actually gives you a little >>>> nicer >>>> view of the the renaming [2]. Everything you had in >>>> /contributors/gtalbot/incoming moved to /work-in-progress/gtalbot >>>> [3]. >>>> The >>>> full description of the changes that were made are at the top of this >>>> thread [4]. >>>> >>>> On somewhat of a side note, since we¹re now in the Github world, any >>>> new >>>> tests that land in the repo should start with a pull request where >>>> they >>>> will be reviewed, approved, and merged from there. We are favoring >>>> this >>>> over using the mailing list for test reviews for reasons I outlined >>>> here >>>> [5]. >>> >>> >>> I'm sorry. I am still outdated then. >>> >>> >>>> All W3C test submissions are now done this way and it¹s a much >>>> cleaner approach than relying on an external system or directory >>>> naming >>>> convention to reflect test status. There are still a few who push >>>> directly to Mercurial, but we are not broadcasting this workflow any >>>> longer and and even the veterans are discouraged from doing this if >>>> what >>>> they¹re submitting needs review. I personally only do so for >>>> housekeeping >>>> tasks that don¹t require a review. With this new workflow, all tests >>>> that >>>> are merged into the repo can be assumed reviewed and approved. >>>> >>>> Now, I realize that we still have many tests unreviewed from before >>>> we >>>> adopted Github. We can still use Shepherd for tracking these-- either >>>> its >>>> API or the web interface. However, at some point, we¹ll have to >>>> decide >>>> how >>>> to reconcile these tests as it¹s probably not realistic to expect >>>> that >>>> thousands of tests will ever be reviewed by humans. Peter and I have >>>> had >>>> some offline discussions about how to address this, but this is a >>>> issue >>>> to >>>> solve later. >>> >>> I have ideas on this. >>> >>>> We have Shepherd in the meantime (luckily). We wanted to make >>>> these changes first to move closer to the way the rest of the W3C >>>> manages >>>> tests. We¹re now in a better position to merge/move into the main W3C >>>> web-platform-tests repo [6]. That¹s also a separate discussion that >>>> only >>>> just began at the last CSSWG F2F and it will certainly pick up again >>>> soon. >>>> We just had to do this part first. >>>> >>>> Let me know if you have any other questions & thanks again for your >>>> incredible attention to detail. :) >>> >>> :) >>> >>> Gérard >>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -Rebecca >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/8ed45b2c892f >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>>>https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/commit/70cfca08acf7fdb1119eb2e7ecbccd >>>>91 >>>> 15 >>>> cd81c7 >>>> [3] >>>> >>>> >>>>https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/commit/55ecf8c9c7bfcb67d059ea68dc8041 >>>>d8 >>>> a8 >>>> 0cdf7f >>>> [4] >>>> >>>> >>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2014May/0000.h >>>>tm >>>> l >>>> [5] >>>> >>>> >>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2013Nov/0014.h >>>>tm >>>> l >>>> [6] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests >>> >>> -- >>> Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite >>> >>>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-con >>>tr >>> ibutions-css21-testsuite.html >>> CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 >>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html > >-- >Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite >http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contr >ibutions-css21-testsuite.html >CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 >http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 00:35:43 UTC