W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-test-infra@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Review of tests upstreamed by implementors

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:05:08 -0700
To: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD6F0FA9.26A47%stearns@adobe.com>
On 3/20/13 2:05 AM, "Tobie Langel" <tobie.langel@gmail.com> wrote:

>As pointed out by Robin[1], the test review process is more often than
>not the bottleneck.
>I've had a number of offline conversations about lightening the review
>process for tests as much as possible.
>One of the topic that came up on multiple occasions was that tests
>upstreamed by implementers had already been peer-reviewed internally.
>It seems giving special treatment to such submissions would help reduce
>the bottleneck and get tests in the repository much faster. (Note that we
>could still run a number of tests automatically on such submission to
>catch common issues).
>In order to go through this fast-track process, some form of log of the
>internal review process would need to be produced alongside the
>submission. For open-source projects, this could be an URL to a publicly
>accessible bug tracker, for non open-source projects, this would need to
>be added to the body of the pull request.
>Should a given submission prove problematic, the merge would be reverted
>and the tests would go through the regular review process.

I agree. We should try being more liberal in accepting internal reviews,
then deal with problems if they crop up.


Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 14:05:36 UTC

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