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

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

From: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 12:21:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CAARdPYfF998ZUdY6Mbpv_Nenhk3Ak-eP2-9jBxV4QYZDr+3b8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Todd Reifsteck <toddreif@microsoft.com>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Cc: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
What are the next steps for actually making this happen? For Service Worker
I just added a few lines to CONTRIBUTING.md:
https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1131

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:35 AM Todd Reifsteck <toddreif@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Late sound off.. but this SGTM as well.
>
>
>
> We have some debt to pay off, but this will pay dividends in the long run!
>
>
>
> -Todd
>
>
>
> *From:* Ilya Grigorik [mailto:igrigorik@google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 2:48 PM
> *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
> *Subject:* Re: Adopting a dual spec/testing process for webperf specs
>
>
>
> 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 Wednesday, 3 May 2017 12:22:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 3 May 2017 12:22:02 UTC