I was rather thinking about having a location that QE can control better.

But if using Java based DSL for tests will result in faster inclusion of PRs in
master, you've found a good argument to do so, abstractj.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:16:11 -0300
Bruno Oliveira <bruno@abstractj.org> wrote:

> I think it can be assigned and discussed with people familiar about
> Groovy. Maybe get in touch with whom is familiar with it? This thread
> might work as a hint
> http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-To-Groovy-or-not-to-Groovy-in-integration-tests-td4030.html
>
> Karel Piwko wrote:
> > Heya,
> >
> > while developing tests, we often fix something in one PR while we hit the
> > same problem while different PR is developed. I'm not sure whether it's
> > temporary situation or not, but right now we need a faster occurrence of
> > PRs in master.
> >
> > That said, I really like "reviewers required" model used in Aerogear. So I
> > was thinking of making a "mirror" of aerogear master (either branch or
> > separate repository), where I could do the PR review, merge and later PR
> > the master for review in bigger chunks. I'd like to avoid separating code
> > and itests if possible, as this makes writing white tests a pita.
> >
> > How does it sound to you? Any comments/suggestions welcomed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Karel
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev