- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:31:48 +0100
- To: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
- CC: public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On 01/07/14 17:19, Dirk Pranke wrote: > I certainly don't, that's true. But, if I was being a standards purist, it > seems like defining fuzzy matching criteria would be a good idea, rather > than leaving it be implementation defined. > > That said, I'm not being a standards purist and I'd rather focus on > whatever gets people running more tests more often :). Sure. But there are pragmatic reasons for not depending on Imagemagick. The simplest is that it potentially requires everyone to use the same version of Imagemagick, with the same compile time switches, in order to get the same results. This leaves a high chance of things like OS upgrades on test infrastructure breaking results. We might be lucky and get away with it, but it is a risk.
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 16:32:15 UTC