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-t... 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(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: I was rather thinking about having a location that QE can control better. If it is a matter of having "commit rights", I guess that should be easy to fix, since you guys are already "contributing" a lot to the AeroGear project 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(a)abstractj.org&gt; 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-t... > > 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(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev