- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 15:06:41 -0700
- To: public-test-infra@w3.org
On 08/07/2013 02:19 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > > I wasn't aware of that, thanks. > > That said, having taken a quick look, that seems like that is quite a > bit less accessible, being N different copies of the main repo (1 per > pull request / patch), rather than having the specifically submitted > files all available alongside the approved ones. Think of it as encouragement to do test review :) I presume you typically review Google-written (e.g. gtest) tests before they are committed to your repository. This is important for lots of reasons, for example ank the void bad/flaky tests breaking the build. You can apply the same process to web-platform-tests tests, but with the proviso that the review has to be done either on github or in critic. It can be done by the blink contributer that would do the review anyway, just in a public location. > It seems like the CSSWG's model works somewhat better if tests persist > in the "submitted-but-not-approved" state for a significant period of > time (which seems quite plausible for some tests, especially for specs > that are still being worked on). Does that sound like I have things right? I think the assumption that it is OK for tests to be submitted but not reviewed for a long time is wrong. The same standards apply here as for any other code.
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 22:07:04 UTC