- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:50:25 -0400
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- CC: public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On 3/20/13 5:05 AM, ext Tobie Langel wrote: > 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. > > Thoughts? The process I am familiar with is that a WG is responsible for approving the tests used to determine if a spec meets in CR exit criteria. Would you please clarify if you are proposing the WG defer to the upstream review (and not do its own review and approval); or more like this additional bit of data would be given to the WG when they review+approve tests for a CR; or something else? (I'm sure the overall workflow your proposal builds upon is documented somewhere so I apologize for the dumb question but I couldn't find that document so please do let me know where the "new" workflow is documented.) -Thanks, AB
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 18:50:47 UTC