Sorry, I missed Mark's original message. Who maintains *.ecmascript.org? If we can expect it to be reliable I would have no problem moving development of the sputnik test suite there. Actually I would be prepared to move as soon as we can agree on what structure we want. One small issue is how to review code changes. Sputnik already uses a "third-party" tool (as in it's developed by google but not an integrated part of code.google.com) and for now we could continue to use that, just from a different base repository.
As for merging sputnik with es5conform and the subset of the mozilla tests that reflect the spec I see no reason why we couldn't do that, other than the work it would take to merge the heterogeneous frameworks. -- Christian On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Patrick Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > There didn't seem to be any follow-up discussion on this, that I could see. > Looking at the (top-level) change logs for es5conform and sputniktests, you > can see there has been some working going on since Mark's post. > > Any status on the individual suites, a combination of the suites, or > re-hosting them? > > On Sep 12, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > >> Currently, there are two open source EcmaScript test suites and one open >> source JavaScript test suite. >> >> * http://es5conform.codeplex.com/ for testing the differences between ES5 >> and ES3 >> * http://code.google.com/p/sputniktests/ for testing ES3 >> * http://www.mozilla.org/js/tests/library.html for testing Mozilla's >> JavaScript. >> >> In committee, we all agreed that we like the structure of the first two, as >> they follow the structure of the spec. We also agreed that we'd like the >> results of developing and possibly merging these test suites to be hosted at >> ecmascript.org, and to eventually earn some kind of status as the official >> conformance test suites. The open question is where to do the development. >> Having the development be split among three, or even two, code development >> sites that some participants might regard as partisan, and that operate in >> somewhat different ways, is doable but not optimal. >> >> Current resources at ecmascript.org that one might start from for joint >> development are http://hg.ecmascript.org/ and http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ . >> Are these adequate starting points? Are there other suitable resources >> hosted by Ecma? Could there be? Is this realistic? What about other >> alternatives like sourceforge or github? Or are we better off just sticking >> with the current split development that, frankly, is working rather well? > > Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
