standard interface or standard test interface

[Kamil Paral]

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

[Stef Walter]

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