- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 05:59:48 +0100
- To: public-test-infra@w3.org
On 16/09/17 04:51, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:42 PM Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Given that there are costs associated with moving tests around, I’m >> slightly in favor of leaving current tests where they are. >> > > Can you elaborate a bit on this? I don't disagree that there is *some* > cost, but at least from my vantage point it seems quite acceptable. When > tests are renamed we deal with it in the Chromium import process, and > doesn't require us to treat all of the renamed files as if they were new. > If there are other bits of tooling that don't handle renames well, I > wouldn't mind investing a bit of time fixing that. Our import process doesn't (currently) deal with moving tests well. We can and should improve that. However a one-time patch moving lots of paths is something that we could deal with manually, so that shouldn't be a blocker to choosing a better organisation.
Received on Saturday, 16 September 2017 05:00:12 UTC