still no conf call...

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

Agenda Item #1 Check for new bugs

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

We have 3 bugs total..

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

it looks like it could be closed

No conf call is setup...

<jgraham> Ooh conf

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

though IRC works just fine

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

<jgraham> But I will change the component

so then you can resolve it as won't fix

<plh> I'm ok with irc

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

<plh> are you to change the interface between the harness and the framework?

<plh> s//going/

<jgraham> The callback API?

<plh> yes

<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

<jgraham> Are there reasons to change it?

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

<plh> yes, I'm asking how stable it is

<plh> I don't know any reason to change it

I would not change it....

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

it's an ask that is not strictly needed

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

<plh> good

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

let's move on to the second agenda item

It more of an FYI rather than an agenda item

<Mike5> oh

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

<plh> we're on irc only Mike

<Mike5> OK

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

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

Feedback ends soon...april 20th

We (Microsoft) will be sending some feedback

<plh> ok

Is Opera OK with this proposal?

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

<jgraham> Sure I think we are happy with the webapps proposal

I like the CFC for test approval

Ensures that everyone has a voice on approved tests

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

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

<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

<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.

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

<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

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

<jgraham> +high quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

<jgraham> So I guess we will have to improvise something

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

I just run a script and watch submissions

Sounds like a good task for the cross testing working group

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

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

<plh> it's also watching the review process

It's a simple scale problem

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

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

sure

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

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

<jgraham> It is not trivial to work out what the requirments are

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

<jgraham> *natural

<jgraham> Where people review parts of specific commits

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

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

<plh> may be it can be extended...

how does that work

<jgraham> Interesting. Are you using something widely avaliable or something homegrown?

<plh> I think it's homegrown

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

<plh> php

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

email is not good for tracking

<plh> just a url to click on, pretty easy

<plh> well, we could have a page maybe instead of emails

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

<plh> I'm open to alternatives :)

<jgraham> Me too :)

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

<jgraham> It's the the repo under submissions/Opera/

<plh> thanks!

<jgraham> It has some issues still

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

<plh> Kris, I am already :(

Let's move on to the last agenda item

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

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

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

<plh> why so far in the future?

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

If not one responds back it seems fair given the time

<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

<plh> I'm ok with May 17th

It also means that Aryeh needs to stop changing the tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

is their a trick to getting the permissions set?

got it

Shall we adjourn?

<plh> fine by me

<jgraham> Sure

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

WARNING: Bad s/// command: s//going/
Succeeded: s/parser/parser tests/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: krisk
Inferring Scribes: krisk

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Mike5 Mike5_ gsnedders jgraham plh
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

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

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 19 Apr 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/19-htmlt-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report