Re: W3C Testing How To slides

On 9/21/12 1:20 PM, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:

>On 9/19/12 12:33 PM, ext Tobie Langel wrote:
>> On 9/19/12 6:27 PM, "Kris Krueger" <krisk@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe it's a lot of extra work without a lot of benefit.
>> I guess that depends whether we're planning to rely on the developer
>> community to significantly help with test authoring... or not.
>
>Do we have any real cases where someone refused to contribute tests
>because of a hg versus git barrier? If yes, please send me the links.

This is not about hg vs git, but about hg versus GitHub.

GitHub makes the contribution process incredibly simpler, gives visibility
to W3C and W3C testing, and incentives for contributors through visible
attribution (worth considering given how strongly GitHub-based recruiting
is nowadays).

That said, this is a chicken and egg problem.

Outside developers don't know W3C has tests, and even when they do, they
can't find them because the organization of w3c-test.org is so completely
arcane.

Case in point, the team of outsourced devs which helped build Ringmark
were unable to find relevant tests on w3c-test.org despite being pointed
at the hg repos multiple times. They ended up rewriting a lot of existing
tests.


>Coremob presumably has a bunch of non-W3C people (let's consider them
>part of the "developer community" above) and its charter includes "test
>suites" as a primary deliverable. What's the contribution success from
>that CG? I ask because I'm wondering what we should consider as
>realistic expectations for test contributions from this "community",
>especially vis-a-vis the use of "rely" above.

Test the Web Forward probably has more interesting data. We're only just
about to get started with testing... And we'll mostly be referencing tests
from other Wgs.


--tobie

Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 12:36:30 UTC