W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > March 2017

Re: Adopting a dual spec/testing process for webperf specs

From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:47:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CADXXVKoNTWd4q8O6iKFd8suu7N6iY1QHFkqHijPK=HbN1D87Pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
sgtm.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:

> I support that proposal as well.
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:33 AM Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd love to see this as well, everywhere! It was a genuine surprise to us
>> when adopting it for HTML how well it worked out, and now it's hard to
>> imagine going back. It does require a strong cooperation between spec
>> editor and implementers, if there isn't a sense of shared responsibility,
>> then it'll not be as great I think.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:35 PM Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd (unsurprisingly) love to see this!
>>
>> Note that when new features ship in blink we're now asking people
>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/blink-dev/web-platform-tests%7Csort:relevance/blink-dev/leQDM4nhGHA/Gy5LHezwCAAJ>
>> to explain any cases where web exposed behavior does not have
>> web-platform-tests.  So we expect writing web-platform-tests to
>> increasingly be part of any blink implementation.  Hopefully that means
>> this is less of a burden on spec editors than it might first seem (and
>> ultimately less of a burden on engine developers since we get to share most
>> of this work across companies and do less engine-specific test work).
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Our specifications and our tests are out of sync. Most often, the tests
>> are behind (eg Beacon) and sometimes, the tests are ahead (eg User Timing).
>> This is costing us dearly in the long run imho (eg TAO,
>> user-timing/mark/measure).
>>
>> I'd like to propose that the Working Group adopts a dual spec/testing
>> process, similar to the one applied in the pointer events working group [1]
>> and the whatwg [2]:
>>
>> [[
>> Normative spec changes are generally expected to have a corresponding
>> pull request in web-platform-test. Outstanding test work is tracked via
>> issues in this repository and issues generally remain open until both spec
>> and test changes land. If one PR is approved but the other needs more work,
>> add the 'do not merge yet' label or, in web-platform-tests, the
>> 'status:needs-spec-decision' label.
>> ]]
>>
>> wdyt?
>>
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/blob/gh-pages/README.markdown
>> [2] https://github.com/whatwg/meta/blob/master/TEAM.md
>>
>>
>>
Received on Friday, 31 March 2017 21:48:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 31 March 2017 21:48:55 UTC