Re: Unifying testsuite policy and getting rid of CSS exceptions

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:20 PM James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 27/09/17 18:54, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> > I also doubt that this is the final state of things, but I have to say it
> > does fulfill the most important of my goals, which is to make the
> > organization more approachable (one directory per spec), allowing Blink's
> > layout and style teams to work more effectively with them.
> >
> > Having to add <link rel=help> even where it's obvious from context is a
> bit
> > annoying, but it seems quite tolerable as long as it shows up early in
> the
> > process (presubmit or review) when people are already expecting feedback.
> > It may well turn out in 3-6 months that this is the top complaint about
> > working with wpt, and then I think we should address it.
> >
> > I also expect that wpt.fyi will keep getting better to the point where
> > using that is the only sensible choice, and then we might have this
> > discussion again, about how to deal with what is effectively long lived
> > branches of the CSS specs, but not of the test suite.
> >
> > Progress?
> >
>
>
> Yeah, a simpler directory structure is certainly progress. But I worry
> that there are historical examples of people refusing to submit
> perfectly good testsuites to CSS because of metadata requirements.
> Making that metadata almost a noop isn't going to help convince people
> that they aren't being asked to perform pointless makework. However, as
> you say, it should become more obvious what the actual effect is in a
> few months.
>

I wonder, might this have been about a reviewer asking for more structure
than the lint enforced, basically nitpicking?

Whatever the case may be, I hope that everybody colliding in the same
directories will eventually result in people talking and working out what
will actually work :)