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

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

From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:35:15 -0400
To: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>, Todd Reifsteck <toddreif@microsoft.com>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Cc: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2a646d9d-1613-fb50-de07-96b27f96b091@w3.org>
On 5/3/2017 8:21 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> 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

I guess we should simply say we adopt this today and assign an action 
item to Xiaoqian or myself (or anyone else eager) to go around and 
update all of our repositories. I'm curious however, did anyone 
implemented a check that fails if no link to WPT is found in a pull 
request comment?

Philippe

> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:35 AM Todd Reifsteck <toddreif@microsoft.com
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:igrigorik@google.com>]
>     *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 2:48 PM
>     *To:* Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws <mailto:yoav@yoav.ws>>
>     *Cc:* Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org
>     <mailto:foolip@chromium.org>>; Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com
>     <mailto:rbyers@google.com>>; Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org
>     <mailto:plh@w3.org>>; public-web-perf@w3.org
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:yoav@yoav.ws>> wrote:____
>
>         I support that proposal as well.____
>
>         __ __
>
>         On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:33 AM Philip Jägenstedt
>         <foolip@chromium.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 13:35:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 3 May 2017 13:35:24 UTC