Re: CSS test GitHub repo strategy for TestTWF Shenzhen

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rebecca Hauck wrote:
> On 10/3/13 7:25 AM, "Tobie Langel" <tobie@w3.org (mailto:tobie@w3.org)> wrote:
> > On a branding/discoverability perspective, I'm also not keen on seeing a
> > testthewebforward org pop up on GH that wouldn't also be the canonical
> > location of the testtwf-website repo, web-platform-tests repo, etc. As
> > moving those repos would just be a major annoyance to everyone involved,
> > I'm strongly opposed to this. If you absolutely must create a new org for
> > this, please tie it to the CSS WG and not to Test the Web Forward.
> 
> Fair enough. FWIW, we created the testhewebforward github user in April in
> preparation for the Seattle event, where we first used GitHub. I only just
> converted it to an organization so I could add more owners. I'm aiming for
> this to be a repeatable process for other events and other organizers who
> may not be CSSWG members, so I'm not sure a CSSWG organization is the way
> to go. Would TestTheWebForward-Events be more acceptable?

No, because that again makes a special case (the CSS WG's reliance on HG as a canonical repository) the perceived norm. One of the key guidelines of this testing effort is discoverability. The existence of a TestTheWebForward branded repo that isn't the canonical location of the tests completely trumps that.

I have another proposal to make. It is probably a bit crazy, there are obvious downsides to it which might end up being deal breakers, but it elegantly solves all of the problems you've been bringing up here, and more.

What if we immediately started to use the main repository for contributions of CSS tests made during TestTWF events?

We could add directories for each CSS WG spec much like we do for the specs of other groups. When the time comes to merge the content of the CSS repo into the main directory, everything would already be setup. In the unfortunate event that the CSS WG would decide not to join the common effort, we could always merge the CSS tests back to the CSS WG's repo at relatively low engineering costs.

This solution obviously completely solves your workflow issues. It also solves the CLA problem I raised and the issues related to creating a dedicated GH org I mentioned above.

An added benefit is that it really simplifies the documentation and the explanation done at TestTWF events and on testthewebforward.org. There is one repo, one workflow, one way to do things, etc. It's also nicely forward-looking.

Now as, I mentioned before, there are obvious downsides to this (and maybe also less obvious ones), but the tradeoff might be worth it. Should we seriously consider this, collect the downsides, and have an informed conversation about it or are there immediate blockers that come to mind and make the exercise moot? 

--tobie

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 23:51:35 UTC