Re: Moving Ambient Light Tests, Re: Agenda - Distributed Meeting 15 August 2012

+1 to use of the shortname, (probably in conjunction with wg name) and github.com/w3c

e.g. github.com/w3c/dap/battery-status/tests as an example

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:36 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:

> On Aug 15, 2012, at 00:57 , Tobie Langel wrote:
>> I think the best option would be to have projects hosted under the
>> umbrella of the W3C (github) organization, so they would all sit at
>> github.com/w3c. W3C staff would be able to create Github teams with R+W
>> access to specific repos. Repos would all be public so everyone would have
>> read access.
> 
> Yup. Note that you need not wait for W3C to approve your repo — you can start your own and it can be forked there.
> 
>> How repos are organized and/or name is probably best left to individual
>> groups to figure out, though I think matching w3.org/TR/ could prove
>> invaluable.
> 
> Yes, I would suggest ${shortname}-tests or something of the sort.
> 
>>> Another question: would the existing Web Apps test suite creation process
>>> [1] work for a general community in the wild, or is it too process heavy?
>>> How do you invasion test contributions will work (i.e., shared
>>> project/contributors, integration control into main test branch,
>>> code/test quality control/guidelines, etc.)?
>> 
>> I don't think much of it would need to change. Inclusion of new test case
>> in the test suite could be done through pull requests, burdening the
>> puller (a member of the team with r+w access to the repo) to verify that
>> the requester has signed the CLA. In practice a high number of
>> contributions come from a small number of contributors, which considerably
>> lightens this burden. Node.js, which is the second most followed
>> repository on github[1], and the seventh most forked one[2], handles this
>> process manually; I've yet to hear complains about it.
> 
> The CLA part is important and does indeed need to be changed. But the WebApps testing process is IMHO too heavy, and leads to bad directory structures. I think we should drop the submitted/approved structure and move to commit-then-review, with branches. I would recommend git flow for this. People propose tests to feature/*. The branch that most people are interested in is development. Whenever we need to snapshot things, to put a seal of approval from the group on the suite, to make an official release with results, or whatever, we merge to master and tag it.
> 
> I'd be happy to write this up.
> 
> -- 
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 13:59:19 UTC