Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] test suite questions

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

That's fine with me.

Note: I think that having a full 1.0/2.0 test suite is very good to
have, but unfortunately, more time consuming.

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected
by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or
any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and
delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 


Monday, February 6, 2006, 11:22:15 AM, you wrote:

> At 11:04 AM 2/6/2006 -0500, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>>[...]
>>My point was that we have already enough work as is (and progress is being 
>>made at a very slow pace). So lets prioritize...
>>
>>The way I see it, we don't need 1.0 tests in the 2.0 test suite. From a 
>>process stand point (i.e., for getting some sort of Standard recognition), 
>>it doesn't help us. We're just making the test suite bigger (and 
>>duplicating things). I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but simply 
>>saying that it doesn't _have_ to be done.
>>
>>In my opinion:
>>
>>- First priority should be new 2.0 features.
>>- Second, modified 1.0 behaviors in 2.0.
>>- Third, (if time permitting) moving unchanged 1.0 tests to 2.0.

> Because measuring 2.0 conformance means passing (most of) the 1.0 tests, I
> think at the very least that the 2.0 harness must have some indication that
> 2.0 conformance involves:  "pass these 1.0 tests" (list 'em or link 
> 'em).  That would be an acceptable and expedient substitute for "moving
> unchanged 1.0 tests to 2.0".

> -Lofton.