W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-test-infra@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: W3C Testing How To slides

From: Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:59:06 +0200
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Tobie Langel" <tobie@fb.com>
Cc: "Kris Krueger" <krisk@microsoft.com>, "public-test-infra@w3.org" <public-test-infra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wkzk0sdb49xobu@odinho-fido.oslo.osa>
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:35:18 +0200, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:
> This is not about hg vs git, but about hg versus GitHub.

Exactly. I wrote the same in way too many words, so I only sent it to Art  
because I had no time shortening it :-)

After talking a bit, I think we can do part (a) of using GitHub for its  
network, exposure and super low barrier, without blocking a potential (b)  
hg to git move that might or might not happen.

We want exposure and a low barrier no matter what.

GitHub would then be the community channel (no need for registering in W3  
and asking for commit rights). We'd review the pull requests, and when  
they're reviewed we can apply them to the W3C Mercurial tree. Not super  
elegant, but all the easy bits for contributors are there, and the less  
exposed "backend" stuff (W3C hg and w3c-test.org uploading) will be done  
by us when the pulls are approved.

I'd be interested in adding approved patches it would probably not be a  
big burden at all. If it does become one, we have a really nice luxury  
problem and it'd be easy to fix that when needed.

So for Test The Web Forward, we can just say "Fork us on GitHub, and do a  
Pull request". Easy as that.

Odin Hørthe Omdal (Velmont/odinho) · Core, Opera Software, http://opera.com
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 12:59:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:34:08 UTC