IRC log of htmlt on 2011-04-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:29 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #htmlt

15:02:29 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/19-htmlt-irc

15:02:45 [krisk]

zakim, this is htmlt

15:02:45 [Zakim]

sorry, krisk, I do not see a conference named 'htmlt' in progress or scheduled at this time

15:02:50 [krisk]

zakim, this is #htmlt

15:02:50 [Zakim]

sorry, krisk, I do not see a conference named '#htmlt' in progress or scheduled at this time

15:03:45 [krisk]

still no conf call...

15:04:05 [krisk]

I suspect that this will not be a problem given who is on IRC

15:04:58 [krisk]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2011Apr/0010.html

15:05:28 [krisk]

Agenda Item #1 Check for new bugs

15:05:41 [krisk]

tiny url link http://tinyurl.com/3jgnk98

15:05:58 [krisk]

We have 3 bugs total..

15:06:29 [krisk]

jgraham are you going to do anything with bug #11321?

15:06:38 [krisk]

it looks like it could be closed

15:06:56 [plh]

plh has joined #htmlt

15:07:27 [krisk]

No conf call is setup...

15:09:23 [jgraham]

Ooh conf

15:09:55 [krisk]

plh if you dial/setup the call I can dial in as well...

15:10:03 [krisk]

though IRC works just fine

15:11:10 [jgraham]

I don't think the essensial style of testharness.js is likely to change at this point

15:11:25 [jgraham]

But I will change the component

15:11:31 [krisk]

so then you can resolve it as won't fix

15:13:33 [plh]

I'm ok with irc

15:13:36 [jgraham]

I have moved it to the testharness.js component. I will keep it open for now

15:14:13 [plh]

are you to change the interface between the harness and the framework?

15:14:17 [plh]

s//going/

15:14:41 [jgraham]

The callback API?

15:14:45 [plh]

yes

15:15:31 [jgraham]

I imagine that has to be at least somewhat stable now. I have considered using something like postMessage but maybe that would have to be a better supplementary API

15:16:12 [jgraham]

Are there reasons to change it?

15:16:30 [jgraham]

(I am assuming you are asking "is it stable" but maybe not)

15:16:54 [plh]

yes, I'm asking how stable it is

15:17:03 [plh]

I don't know any reason to change it

15:17:07 [krisk]

I would not change it....

15:17:15 [jgraham]

Well it is a real pain for me if I change it since I have things that depoend on it :)

15:17:15 [krisk]

it's an ask that is not strictly needed

15:17:40 [jgraham]

So at the very least I don't expect the current API to disappear

15:17:54 [plh]

good

15:18:26 [krisk]

If someone really wants this then they can add to the harness and not break the current API

15:19:10 [krisk]

let's move on to the second agenda item

15:19:33 [Mike5]

Mike5 has joined #htmlt

15:19:46 [krisk]

It more of an FYI rather than an agenda item

15:19:55 [Mike5]

Zakim, call Mike-goog

15:19:55 [Zakim]

sorry, Mike5, I don't know what conference this is

15:19:59 [Mike5]

oh

15:20:05 [krisk]

Note the WebApps thread about CFC for test approval (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0219.html)

15:20:06 [plh]

we're on irc only Mike

15:20:09 [Mike5]

OK

15:20:29 [plh]

I just went through the thread and didn't anything dramatic there

15:21:05 [plh]

there is still the approved/submitted debate which, imho, depend on the group and the stage of the spec

15:21:12 [krisk]

Feedback ends soon...april 20th

15:21:35 [krisk]

We (Microsoft) will be sending some feedback

15:21:45 [plh]

ok

15:21:54 [krisk]

Is Opera OK with this proposal?

15:22:01 [jgraham]

I think Aryeh has a point about the organisation of the HTML repo not being optimal

15:22:20 [jgraham]

Sure I think we are happy with the webapps proposal

15:22:35 [krisk]

I like the CFC for test approval

15:23:18 [krisk]

Ensures that everyone has a voice on approved tests

15:24:21 [plh]

I'm ok switching to CFC, but asking the html wg to do CFC on test suite might be premature imho

15:24:59 [plh]

I was thinking we could drive the group using CFCs for the test suite once the spec is in CR

15:25:50 [jgraham]

FWIW what I think we really need is a code review system that would allow us to track which tests have actually been looked at

15:25:53 [plh]

if we want to do CFC for the test suite before CR, I would suggest talking to the chairs first. we don't want to overburden the group too much between the call for proposals, reviews, etc.

15:26:22 [krisk]

I'm not suggesting that we switch to this for the HTMLWG

15:26:45 [jgraham]

]I am not yet really worried about how the end game pans out for the HTML testsuite because we are so far from that point

15:27:21 [jgraham]

I think it is much more profitable to worry about how to get more tests

15:27:28 [jgraham]

+high quality

15:27:48 [krisk]

Though having multiple people agree that a test is 'approved' is better than having just one person 'approving'

15:28:33 [krisk]

If you have not noticed ms2ger has added a number of more tests into Hg

15:28:35 [krisk]

see http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Ms2ger/

15:28:47 [plh]

so, the code review system would be for each test?

15:28:55 [jgraham]

Right, being able to track who reviewed each commit (or even each line in a commit) would be perfect

15:29:18 [jgraham]

I have been looking for mercurial code review systems that do this, but have drawn a blank so far, sadly

15:29:46 [jgraham]

So I guess we will have to improvise something

15:30:40 [plh]

do we have a page to track the submitted tests for html somewhere?

15:31:06 [krisk]

I just run a script and watch submissions

15:31:38 [krisk]

Sounds like a good task for the cross testing working group

15:31:59 [krisk]

Since this is not WG specific and I have heard this ask from other WG (for example CSS)

15:32:09 [plh]

we can look into that sure. it's more than just watching submissions however

15:32:16 [plh]

it's also watching the review process

15:32:32 [krisk]

It's a simple scale problem

15:33:20 [plh]

it would be helpful to have a list of requirements/needs from this group however

15:33:36 [plh]

if we're going to develop something, better make sure it's something you guys want

15:33:39 [krisk]

sure

15:34:08 [plh]

it goes under http://www.w3.org/wiki/TestInfra/goals#Test-case_management.2Ftracking

15:34:41 [plh]

we haven't developed the requirements a lot for this so far

15:35:36 [jgraham]

It is not trivial to work out what the requirments are

15:36:04 [jgraham]

My ntural instinct is to favour something more like traditional code review

15:36:08 [jgraham]

*natural

15:36:24 [jgraham]

Where people review parts of specific commits

15:36:57 [jgraham]

Rather than trying to encode some idea of a test in the system

15:37:31 [plh]

we actually have a code review system in place between our current mercurial, to do reviews of php files

15:37:41 [plh]

may be it can be extended...

15:37:46 [krisk]

how does that work

15:37:56 [jgraham]

Interesting. Are you using something widely avaliable or something homegrown?

15:38:10 [plh]

I think it's homegrown

15:38:28 [plh]

it sends emails to a few team folks if someone commit a pho file

15:38:30 [plh]

php

15:38:53 [plh]

and the php file only gets replicated to w3c-test.org is one of us approves it

15:39:19 [krisk]

email is not good for tracking

15:39:23 [plh]

just a url to click on, pretty easy

15:39:48 [plh]

well, we could have a page maybe instead of emails

15:40:08 [jgraham]

Yeah I worry that doing this "properly" is quite a lot of effort

15:40:36 [plh]

I'm open to alternatives :)

15:41:13 [jgraham]

Me too :)

15:41:42 [plh]

btw, where is your code to run the parser within testharness? did you publish it somewhere?

15:41:50 [plh]

s/parser/parser tests/

15:42:02 [jgraham]

It's the the repo under submissions/Opera/

15:42:18 [plh]

thanks!

15:42:32 [jgraham]

It has some issues still

15:42:53 [krisk]

Plh you can subscribe to the RSS feed for the HTML Hg repository

15:42:55 [Mike5_]

Mike5_ has joined #htmlt

15:43:15 [plh]

Kris, I am already :(

15:43:54 [krisk]

Let's move on to the last agenda item

15:45:10 [krisk]

I have not seen any feedback for the metadata chunk of the reflection tests http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/AryehGregor/reflection/reflection-metadata.html

15:45:36 [krisk]

We said last time we would pick a date if we didn't get any feedback

15:45:57 [krisk]

so how about we pick May 17th as the date?

15:46:08 [plh]

why so far in the future?

15:46:41 [krisk]

So that people have time to actually look at the test and give feedback

15:47:19 [krisk]

If not one responds back it seems fair given the time

15:47:26 [jgraham]

I'm fine with that. I think reviewing one set of the tests basically means reviewing all of them due to the way they are structured

15:47:42 [plh]

I'm ok with May 17th

15:48:33 [krisk]

It also means that Aryeh needs to stop changing the tests

15:49:02 [jgraham]

(this is why working with *commits* is better than tests)

15:49:53 [krisk]

I flexible either way as long as the person is 'done' with a commit or test

15:50:06 [krisk]

and doesn't later need to do some type of 'cleanup

15:50:17 [jgraham]

(well really I suppose one would have to ask for review of a series of commits)

15:50:42 [jgraham]

(and then any later changes would be marked unreviewed and reviewed seperately)

15:51:57 [krisk]

Phl as a side note - the notes that get generated from the RRSAgent always have bad permissions

15:52:13 [krisk]

is their a trick to getting the permissions set?

15:52:14 [gsnedders]

RRSAgent, make minutes public

15:52:14 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', gsnedders. Try /msg RRSAgent help

15:52:43 [gsnedders]

RRSAgent, make logs public

15:52:52 [krisk]

got it

15:53:36 [krisk]

Shall we adjourn?

15:54:03 [plh]

fine by me

15:54:10 [jgraham]

Sure

15:54:33 [krisk]

rrsagent, generate minutes

15:54:33 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/19-htmlt-minutes.html krisk

16:36:06 [Mike5]

Mike5 has joined #htmlt

17:35:13 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #htmlt

17:59:06 [plh]

plh has left #htmlt