- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:55:07 +0100
- To: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
- Cc: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > While you're right about the quandary, I'm not sure that putting the onus on the implementor to review and resolve issues with any and all tests is the way to go. I suspect most implementors will share my concern that we might be being asked to run completely arbitrary tests without regard to their quality or value. Agreed. We need to improve the thoroughness and overall quality of the test suites. As I mentioned above, I feel that adequate visibility, automated test run and visibility should get us a long way. > I believe a challenge lies in building up some level of trust between implementors and the testing groups of the W3C that the "submitted" (and even "approved") w3c tests aren't wasting our time :). Fair enough. > Another challenge lies in making it absolutely painless to pull new tests and run them. Fixing this one first (which is what I believe James was largely alluding to) will go a long way to building up the trust (and make it easier to build it up further). Yes. We need to start having this conversation in public and find effective strategies for implementors to sync with our repo and upstream tests easily. > > Note that in this scenario, implementors' must help out here. We (implementors) can hardly blame the W3C for problems if we've put no effort in on our side. Well, we have at least one volunteer, now. Fantasai was also very keen to see this happen. I'll start a separate thread on this topic. --tobie
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 21:55:18 UTC