- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:03:54 +0200
- To: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>
- CC: "<public-test-infra@w3.org>" <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On 06/01/2012 03:58 PM, Linss, Peter wrote: > There's a fundamental problem here, while I understand that most of > the suites don't (yet) use a build step, and many won't need one (or > may not be able to use one), there are some test suites where a build > step is _mandatory_, like the CSS suites. And that's not going to > change, if anything we're getting more dependent on the build process > over time. > > If you can't incorporate a build step into your workflow, then there > are a _lot_ of tests that will be unavailable to you, like around > 11,000 CSS tests (and that number is growing rapidly). (Actually if > you consider each format the tests are available in, that's more like > 33,000 tests.) We *can* incorporate that step of course, but we would *much prefer* not to. It makes updating the tests a significantly more complex undertaking than it would otherwise be. This means we are less likely to run an up-to-date copy of the tests and as a result interoperability will suffer.
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 14:04:44 UTC