The Testing.drupal.org page is badly outdated and almost entirely inaccurate. I would edit the page, but I lack permission to do so. Therefore I will list the the flaws here in hopes that someone else can fix or remove the page.
-
The page starts out with "We are currently raising money" but provides no contextual date reference.
-
The Chip In! widget is marked "Ended".
-
The second paragraph implies that the only thing being tested is Drupal 7 core, as it states that test results are reported in the "drupal.org Drupal 7 issue queue".
-
The third paragraph is in passive voice:
General development ideas are usually blogged about before implementing large features.
Whose development ideas? Whose blog? Who is implementing large features? I follow the link to find out, and see a post by boombatower declaring that he is no longer working on the testing architecture.
-
The fourth paragraph starts out with "during the last several months" but gives no contextual date reference.
-
Some (most? all?) of the items listed under "Final steps" have been completed.
-
The concluding paragraph states "I will begin work" but gives no clue as to whom is speaking. If, as I suspect, the un-named author is boombatower, the conclusion is in direct contradiction with his previously-linked blog.
Comments
Comment #0.0
pillarsdotnet commentedwordsmithing.
Comment #0.1
pillarsdotnet commentedwordsmithing.
Comment #1
pillarsdotnet commentedComment #2
beanluc commented"Some (most? all?) of the items listed under "Final steps" have been completed."
Which ones?
Comment #3
pillarsdotnet commented@#2 by beanluc on October 9, 2011 at 10:32pm:
I dunno, actually. I suspect that the referenced PIFR/PIFT 2.0 has been deployed, but even if that section is entirely accurate, the rest of my objections remain.
Comment #4
beanluc commentedOK, well, I edited with regard to the other points.
Comment #5
beanluc commentedI also am having Druplicon "tell boombatower" about this. If anyone can update this, he can.
Comment #6
pillarsdotnet commentedOh! You edited the page! I guess this should be "needs review" then.
Comment #7
beanluc commentedwell, I didn't do everything you pointed out, and, someone with actual subject-matter expertise really should have a look, so, I'm setting back to still "needs work".
Comment #8
tvn commentedClosing old issues. Please re-open if needed.
Comment #8.0
tvn commentedwordsmithing.