W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > June 2014

PSA: Handling open pull requests with the new directory structure

From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 23:22:08 +0000
To: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CFB79B34.5013B%rhauck@adobe.com>
Hi all,

This will be lengthy, so here's the TL;DR version:

We need to take care of the open pull request on the CSS test repo so that
they land in the correct place within the new directory structure since they
originated in the old one. This is preferrable to handling them one by
one over time to avoid ongoing confusion. They are in various states of the PR
life cycle, so we've come up with plan to handle/merge based on their current state.

---

As announced previously on this list [1], the CSS test repo has recently
undergone a major refactoring to be more aligned with the way the CSS spec
& wep-platform-tests repos are organized.  The details of what was done are
here [2].

The next bit of work to do is to handle the open pull requests that we have in
the GitHub mirror [3] as they all originated in the old directory
structure and need to be merged into the new one. Rather than deal with
them one at a time as movement happens on each of these, it'll be easier
and cleaner to take care of them all at once to avoid ongoing confusion.
I've discussed with Peter the best way to handle these and we've come up
with something reasonable.  Of course, if you have questions, concerns, or
suggestions, please speak up.

I've audited the ~78 open PRs we have and they break down into 3
categories, each at various states of a PR life cycle:

1. PRs containing only new files

    a. Not yet reviewed: 55
    Given that we already have many unreviewed tests in the repo from
    before the adoption of GitHub and that they are all flagged as such in
    Shepherd, we will treat these the same and merge these into the repo,
   Then shuffle them into the appropriate spec directories as they are.
   They'll come into Shepherd as 'Needs Review' and this will be clearly
   communicated in the PR.

    b. Review comments not addressed: 14
    The authors of these tests have all been contacted via the GitHub
    notification system. If there is no follow up in one week, the PRs will
    be closed and the files will be moved into the work-in-progress folder,
    again, clearly communicated and linked in the PR itself. If review comments
    are addressed by June 12, they'll be handled as #1c.

    c. Reviewed with comments addressed: 4
    The reviewers of these tests have also been contacted and asked to give
    a final LGTM. At that point, they will be merged as the tests in #1a
    are, then moved to the correct spec folder and marked Approved in
    Shepherd.


2. PRs containing modifications to existing files: 1 (PR 93)
   This one will be merged using the hg-git method [4]. This is necessary
   in order to preserve the history, which will be lost if we merge in
   git prior to merging into Mercurial. This particular PR was
   previously Approved and this was a minor change (removing vendor
   prefixes), so it will remain Approved.


3. PRs that contain both new and modified files: 2 (PRs 48 + 50)
   These are in a separate category because they happen to both be
   modifications to files for which the history is not worth preserving
   (mods to starter test files, etc.). These will be merged in
   git first so that they'll land in the right place when merged from
   GitHub into Mercurial.

Again, questions or comments are welcome.

Cheers,
-Rebecca



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2014May/0018.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2014May/0000.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/pulls
[4] http://wiki.csswg.org/test/pullrequests
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 23:22:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:20 UTC