On May 17, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> Let's take an example. "TEXT" next to a test name apparently means that the >> text fails. There is no way in the world I would guess that just from >> reading an expectations file. This is only conceivably understandable to >> someone who is an expert on the format. If someone used TEXT in code to mean >> "fail", I would r- their patch for failure to use meaningful identifiers. >> > > I hardly think you have to be an expert on the format. I think you > probably need it explained to you once, or you could just read > http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/TestExpectations (which is linked to from > (I think) all of the expectations files). If someone gave that kind of explanation for a variable in a patch to C++ code, I would still r- their patch. The token's meaning should be apparent without having to read out-of-line docs first. > > At the risk of overly repeating myself, I am not wedded to any one > format here, but I'm also not inclined to change things just because a > couple of people have vocally objected. If there was a clear consensus > that any change was preferred, that's fine by me. I feel like the people objecting to change, you included, are objecting because mostly because they are already familiar and comfortable with the current format. And not because it is genuinely better than another format that people might be similarly experienced with in the future. It is totally possible to be both newbie-friendly and experienced-friendly if you do not limit "experienced" to only the people who already have experience today. Regards, Maciej _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
