On 02/02/2013 12:50 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
On 2/1/13 4:23 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
One of things I wondering about is - after you leave your Fellow
position [BTW, that's totally wicked so congrats on that!], and Robin
has moved on to `greener pastures` and Odin has moved
On 31/01/2013 18:13 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
As I said during one of the testing breakouts in Lyon, ultimately I
suspect the saying beggars can't be choosy will trump. However,
AFAIK, currently, only one of WebApps' thirty active specs actually
has an outside contribution. As such, and without
On 2/1/13 2:04 AM, ext Tobie Langel wrote:
On 1/31/13 9:13 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
As I said during one of the testing breakouts in Lyon, ultimately I
suspect the saying beggars can't be choosy will trump. However, AFAIK,
currently, only one of WebApps' thirty active
On 1/31/13 3:18 PM, ext Rebecca Hauck wrote:
Yes I submitted a batch of tests from TestTWF some time after the Paris
event.
OK, thanks for this clarification (I just noticed your submissions for
IDB and DOMEvents). Sorry Odin for having missed those!
Since I'm not in the webapps working
On 2/1/13 5:52 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On 1/31/13 3:18 PM, ext Rebecca Hauck wrote:
Since I'm not in the webapps working group, I had to first get access to
the repository. I was told that that to get write access, I (probably)
had
to join the working group [1].
Yes, it
On 2/1/13 4:23 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
One of things I wondering about is - after you leave your Fellow
position [BTW, that's totally wicked so congrats on that!], and Robin
has moved on to `greener pastures` and Odin has moved on to be CEO of
Opera - if/when there are
On 1/24/13 1:22 PM, ext Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
Arthur Barstow wrote:
Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process
[Testing], please make a clear proposal regarding the submission
process, approval process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and
its references. (My
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:13:15 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
However, AFAIK, currently, only one of WebApps' thirty active specs
actually has an outside contribution.
I should've already left work, so I'll just reply to this sentence quickly
:-)
With that you mean
I guess I should chime in.
Yes I submitted a batch of tests from TestTWF some time after the Paris
event. After having a pretty bad experience with Mercurial earlier in the
year at TestTWF San Francisco, we made a conscious choice to eliminate it
in Paris and use DropBox instead. It was
On 1/31/13 9:13 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
As I said during one of the testing breakouts in Lyon, ultimately I
suspect the saying beggars can't be choosy will trump. However, AFAIK,
currently, only one of WebApps' thirty active specs actually has an
outside contribution. As
On 01/24/2013 07:22 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
Arthur Barstow wrote:
Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process
[Testing], please make a clear proposal regarding the submission
process, approval process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and
its references. (My
FWIW that looks good to me. At risk of bikeshedding, I think that calling a
repo with tests for non-HTML specs html-testsuite is confusing and will
make the repository harder to find, especially since the people who are aware
that html is not a catch-all term are also the people most likely
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
Arthur Barstow wrote:
Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process [Testing],
please make a clear proposal regarding the submission process, approval
process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and
Arthur Barstow wrote:
Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process
[Testing], please make a clear proposal regarding the submission
process, approval process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and
its references. (My preference is for you to document the new process,
On 23/01/2013 00:48 , Julian Aubourg wrote:
The one-repo idea, while much simpler from a maintenance point of view,
could easily be a burden on users that subscribe to it. Even more so for
people who can merge PRs (and thus will receive an email for a PR
initiatedfor any spec).
It *could*. But
I can't guess how important the whole attribution thing is. I can however
say that having a public repository on github makes it easier for
drive-by contributors to contribute something. The traditional process
captures almost none of these contributions. I can also tell that I (and
probably most
On 1/22/13 5:53 AM, ext Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
We just had a small discussion on webapps-testsuite [1] about the
possibility of moving the webapps tests. I was wrongly under the
impression that we had discussed this before (hey, confusion is not a
crime ;) ). Now that HTML has done the
On 23/01/2013 13:01 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process
[Testing], please make a clear proposal regarding the submission
process, approval process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and
its references. (My preference is for you to document
Arthur Barstow wrote:
Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process
[Testing], please make a clear proposal regarding the submission
process, approval process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and
its references. (My preference is for you to document the new process,
Hi!
We just had a small discussion on webapps-testsuite [1] about the
possibility of moving the webapps tests. I was wrongly under the
impression that we had discussed this before (hey, confusion is not a
crime ;) ). Now that HTML has done the move, I think it is time for us to
look
I think it's a good idea. The WebGL specification/tests moved to github
which made contributing patches (as pull requests) a lot easier.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.comwrote:
Hi!
We just had a small discussion on webapps-testsuite [1] about the
On 1/22/13 11:53 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
Hi!
We just had a small discussion on webapps-testsuite [1] about the
possibility of moving the webapps tests. I was wrongly under the
impression that we had discussed this before (hey, confusion is not a
crime ;) ).
We had such
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
There are benefits to both approaches. I would be in favor of having a
repository per spec (named tr_shortname-testsuite). This will make it a
lot easier to securely give scoped commit rights to external contributors
when the
On 1/22/13 12:20 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
There are benefits to both approaches. I would be in favor of having a
repository per spec (named tr_shortname-testsuite). This will make it a
lot easier to
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
That's definitely something to keep in mind. How frequent is it that a
feature moves from one spec to another (that, is outside of the continuous
flow of features that migrate from HTML5 to WebApps)?
Is your concern about
On 01/22/2013 12:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
That's definitely something to keep in mind. How frequent is it that a
feature moves from one spec to another (that, is outside of the continuous
flow of features that migrate
On 1/22/13 12:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
That's definitely something to keep in mind. How frequent is it that a
feature moves from one spec to another (that, is outside of the
continuous
flow of features
Tobie Langel wrote:
Odin wrote:
Ms2ger proposed merging our repository with HTML at the same time and
not
necessarily having one repository for each group. I was already thinking
such a move might be beneficial to do for webapps and webappsec, but it
might be even more simple to also have
On 22/01/2013 13:27 , Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
I'm not really sure if that is needed. If we can trust someone in one
repository, why not in all?
I'd add to that: the odds are that if someone is screwing things up,
it's better to have more eyes on what they're doing.
But what wins me over,
On 1/22/13 2:23 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
On 22/01/2013 13:27 , Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
I'm not really sure if that is needed. If we can trust someone in one
repository, why not in all?
I'd add to that: the odds are that if someone is screwing things up,
it's better to have more
On 22/01/2013 14:48 , Tobie Langel wrote:
Yes, I guess what I want to avoid at all costs is the split per WG which
has boundaries that partially happen at IP level, rather than strictly at
the technology level.
My understanding is that we don't have to care about spec-IP issues in
test suites
On 1/22/13 4:45 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
On 22/01/2013 14:48 , Tobie Langel wrote:
Yes, I guess what I want to avoid at all costs is the split per WG which
has boundaries that partially happen at IP level, rather than strictly
at
the technology level.
My understanding is that we
On 22/01/2013 17:14 , Tobie Langel wrote:
On 1/22/13 4:45 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
You *do* need to make the proper commitments for the test suite, but
those are much lighter and can easily be extended to all.
Moving to GitHub should be an excellent occasion to revisit how the CLA
I love the idea of moving to github.
The one-repo idea, while much simpler from a maintenance point of view,
could easily be a burden on users that subscribe to it. Even more so for
people who can merge PRs (and thus will receive an email for a PR
initiatedfor any spec).
Not saying it is
On 1/23/13 12:48 AM, Julian Aubourg j...@ubourg.net wrote:
I love the idea of moving to github.
The one-repo idea, while much simpler from a maintenance point of view,
could easily be a burden on users that subscribe to it. Even more so for
people who can merge PRs (and thus will receive an email
35 matches
Mail list logo
