Should we move our test suites to

Allen Wirfs-Brock Allen.Wirfs-Brock at
Tue Dec 8 15:43:00 PST 2009

I believe that there are still IPR policy issues that need to be worked through before any test suite development that is affiliated with ECMA/T39 could accept contributions from organizations or individuals who do not have an ECMA membership affiliation.  An advantage of the current google/codeplex/mozilla projects, is that they don't have this restriction. While is not exactly officially associated with ECMA/TC-39 it is close enough that I don't think we should try to host a test suite project there until we resolve the IPR issues.

I don't particularly see why TC39 would want to go to the trouble of building and supporting a "foundry". It's enough trouble to do what is necessary to setup and manage individual project without having to be responsible for all the underlying infrastructure. I personally think that both the google code and codeplex hosting environments are fine and future work could be done using either foundry (or another that isn't tainted by a vender affiliation, if this continues to be a concern).

My sense is that both Google and Microsoft has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the projects we initiated can be very open. However, I also think that they both may suffer from a perception that they aren't. Note that I'm a "committer" on the sputnik project and Christian Plesner Hansen of Google and Rob Sayre of Mozilla are "coordinators" on the ES5conform codeplex project. However, I don't think any of us have exercised any of the associated privileges other than for our "own" projects.

I think the biggest issues that we need to resolve to move forward are about project planning, coordination, and process. What needs to be done.  How should it be done.  Who is going to commit to doing to the individual tasks?  I've informally suggested a couple time that maybe we need to have an open planning "summit" do work these things out.  I still think it would be a good idea.


-----Original Message-----
From: es-discuss-bounces at [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:10 PM
To: Christian Plesner Hansen
Cc: es-discuss
Subject: Re: Should we move our test suites to

On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Christian Plesner Hansen wrote:

> Sorry, I missed Mark's original message.
> Who maintains *

I do with help from others (David-Sarah has helped fix up the trac,  
for example).

>  If we can expect it to be reliable I
> would have no problem moving development of the sputnik test suite
> there.  Actually I would be prepared to move as soon as we can agree
> on what structure we want.  One small issue is how to review code
> changes.  Sputnik already uses a "third-party" tool (as in it's
> developed by google but not an integrated part of and
> for now we could continue to use that, just from a different base
> repository.

Can you mail me about what is required to host Sputnik and this tool,  
in detail? Thanks.

> As for merging sputnik with es5conform and the subset of the mozilla
> tests that reflect the spec I see no reason why we couldn't do that,
> other than the work it would take to merge the heterogeneous
> frameworks.

This is a lot of work, so the best way to do it is according to a plan  
we all agree with, but almost ceratinly not with any "big bang"  
integration. Just lots of patches. The separate tests will have their  
own integrity and greater self-consistency for a while. If we get a  
single unified suite, we'll know when it is "ready".


es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at

More information about the es-discuss mailing list