- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:50:17 +0900
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
- Cc: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>, Public www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAN9ydbWtk81rqrMO78=aTr4naiVtUdhj3DA71aKaBXxgstiFnA@mail.gmail.com>
Can you share the plan for http://test.csswg.org/harness/ ? I'm currently relying on its test runner and test results. Would it switch to wpt when the merge occurs? /koji 2016-09-30 0:58 GMT+09:00 Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Gérard Talbot > <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote: > > Le 2016-09-27 12:23, Geoffrey Sneddon a écrit : > >> 3. Ensure web-platform-tests's documentation is up-to-date and > >> cohesive, both for submitting tests and reviewing them. > > > > > > Geoffrey, > > > > My main request regarding reviewing tests is that reviewing tasks > > (procedures, steps, requirements, areas to check, what's decisive, > > important, critical, etc) will be specified and explicit: what should be > > reviewed, how it should be reviewed, what test authors should expect, > what > > is expected from reviewers, from a review, etc... would be specified and > > explicit. The current documentation is, in my opinion, already doing an > > excellent job in that regard as it covered a wide range of possible > > situations and parameters. > > Our current documentation seems to be primarily > <http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html>, given the > old documentation at <https://wiki.csswg.org/test/review> has a big > notice at the top. Is there some other documentation I've missed > somewhere? > > >> 4. Make https://hg.csswg.org/test/ and http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/ > >> read-only. (Really this can be any step up until this point; exact > >> timing doesn't matter.) > > > > > > I am sorry... I am not sure I understand what you mean by make those > > read-only (and what would that imply) and I use and have used exclusively > > Mercurial and Shepherd in the last 5 years. > > > > Eg > > Say I want to add a comment to 001 test in Shepherd: > > http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/testcase/001/ > > Will I be able to if http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/ becomes read-only? > > See below. > > > Eg > > Is https://hg.csswg.org/test/ not already read-only? > > It's not, because it's where you push to (i.e., `hg push` uses HTTP > PUSH and PUT requests to that site). More below… > > So, nobody seems to have sent any email about what was resolved at the > SF F2F, beyond that in the minutes. I presume everyone took it to be > someone else's problem. :) > > The intent is that everything goes through GitHub in future > (especially once merged with web-platform-tests!), to unify where all > our issues are tracked (for similar reasons as to why all technical > feedback on drafts has moved to GitHub; we currently have issues > tracked in Shepherd, on public-css-testsuite, and on GitHub, which > means if you want to find known issues in a given test you have to > look in three places), and to avoid the somewhat awkward > two-way-mirror between Mercurial and Git. Moving to GitHub also allows > us to do review-then-commit, as opposed to our current status quo of > review-then-commit on GitHub and commit-then-review on Mercurial. > > Part of this is being driven by the desire to merge everything with > web-platform-tests so that we have all tests for the web platform in > one repository with one way of getting a list of tests to run, one set > of ways of running the tests, and one way to contribute tests. As it > is, web-platform-tests gets far more attention from browser developers > (both in terms of running tests and submitting them), which is > something we rather want! > > Essentially, we're asking those currently using Mercurial and/or > Shepherd to move to GitHub. There's some documentation when it comes > to GitHub at <http://testthewebforward.org/docs/github-101.html>, but > I think nowadays there's better documentation elsewhere. > <http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Git_vs_Mercurial> has a decent comparison > between git and hg, including corresponding commands. (There's a few > things to note: most obviously that git has a staging area between the > working copy and the commit tree, whereas hg does not; as a result, > you have to `git add` files that are already in the tree to get them > in the staging area to then be committed.) I don't know if the Pro Git > book (<https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2>) would be helpful; it may be a > bit too in-depth for many trying to just start using it! > > FWIW, there is some plan to extract all the data currently in Shepherd > into GitHub issues, but there's not really currently a timeline for > that. > > /gsnedders > >
Received on Friday, 30 September 2016 09:51:11 UTC