I wonder how set you are on the "standard interface" name. I find it too generic, and confusing for most people not fully involved with it. Interface for *what*?
When we talk about it in our team, we mostly call it "standard test interface", because then it's clearer what it means, and it even has a nice STI abbreviation when writing (while SI is too short and ambiguous).
Thoughts on calling it "standard test interface" instead? If you think this is too much of a bikeshedding, I apologize, ignore me.
Kamil
On 01.09.2017 15:32, Kamil Paral wrote:
I wonder how set you are on the "standard interface" name. I find it too generic, and confusing for most people not fully involved with it. Interface for /what/?
When we talk about it in our team, we mostly call it "standard test interface", because then it's clearer what it means, and it even has a nice STI abbreviation when writing (while SI is too short and ambiguous).
Thoughts on calling it "standard test interface" instead? If you think this is too much of a bikeshedding, I apologize, ignore me.
This is a good point. And avoiding bikeshedding is hard, so I'll join in?
What about:
"Test specification"
We already have "RPM spec" or "RPM specification". So this would be the equivalent test specification.
It points back to what we're trying to do here:
We are curating tests into a consistent form, the same way that a distro curates software into a consistent form.
Cheers,
Stef
ci@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Kamil Paral -
Stef Walter