Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On 02/11/15 18:43, Josh Matthews wrote: https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Meeting-2015-11-02 For the record, I'm very against trying to run mochitests in Servo. As I understand it the additional features it offers over wpt are mostly because it leverages gecko-internal APIs that Servo

Re: [dev-servo] Handling cases where the spec is inefficient and not followed by anyone

Le 02/11/2015 21:00, Boris Zbarsky a écrit : On 11/2/15 2:21 PM, Manish Goregaokar wrote: We have three choices here, we can wait indefinitely until the spec gets fixed, we can implement the spec as is (which require major changes and affect perf or complexity), or we can hope that nobody

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

You can also see it here publicly: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HYoEo5Vx9XuFWFh_1zGWtT-pvebNqspY-PqbUzh3y7Q/pubhtml There's nothing private about it! I just gave up after a half an hour trying to figure out "how do I share this google doc so that everyone in Mozilla+a list of

Re: [dev-servo] Handling cases where the spec is inefficient and not followed by anyone

On 11/3/15 4:52 AM, David Bruant wrote: @Manish: additionally, perhaps leave a comment in the open spec bug Oh, yes. Any time the spec does not match reality or sanity, do let the spec author know. -Boris ___ dev-servo mailing list

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, James Graham wrote: > On 02/11/15 18:43, Josh Matthews wrote: > >> https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Meeting-2015-11-02 >> > > For the record, I'm very against trying to run mochitests in Servo. As I > understand it the additional

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

We probably can't do it in an automated way; tests being converted to WPT need to match spec and usually also need a spec link in the top. We could, however, import them wholesale into Servo's tests/wpt/mozilla/foo, and then manually pick through them. -Manish Goregaokar On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Manish Goregaokar wrote: > That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we should do this on the > mozilla-central side; move things out of mochitest into WPT? > > Is there an easy way of identifying browser-agnostic mochitests? > Maybe grepping

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On 04/11/15 04:52, Manish Goregaokar wrote: * In the long term having multiple APIs for writing tests that people have to learn in order to read tests is a big net negative. If we allow mochitests to be upstreamed with a shim we should expect other vendors to do the same, and to end up with half

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

> 2016 Roadmap > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HYoEo5Vx9XuFWFh_1zGWtT-pvebNqspY-PqbUzh3y7Q/edit#gid=0 I seem this document is not public for users who does not have a 'at mozilla.org' account. Could you change the permission? 2015-11-03 3:43 GMT+09:00 Josh Matthews