I want to add "Gold/Silver/Garbage" etc. ratings for Wine 0.9 for some apps. It doesn't seem like I can do this without erasing the old ratings. I'm not particularly interested in deleting the results of testing a version of Wine with some app. Could this please be changed to allow more ratings than just one? (It's also a bit annoying that I have to erase the workarounds to make an app work with <version x> of Wine. What if someone needs to go back to that version to do regression testing? They'll be sc_____... I don't enjoy having to remove perfectly valid information :-(.)
I wrote:
I want to add "Gold/Silver/Garbage" etc. ratings for Wine 0.9 for some apps.
It doesn't seem like I can do this without erasing the old ratings.
I'm not particularly interested in deleting the results of testing a version of Wine with some app. Could this please be changed to allow more ratings than just one?
(It's also a bit annoying that I have to erase the workarounds to make an app work with <version x> of Wine. What if someone needs to go back to that version to do regression testing? They'll be sc_____... I don't enjoy having to remove perfectly valid information :-(.)
C'mon!.... I promise I won't start a big discussion about this ;-). I'll even volunteer right now to do this myself, if someone points me at the relevant files+schemas :-)
We just added testing results that include the same gold,silver,bronze, garbage rating and the wine version the user tested with. I think this does most of what you are looking for although it won't replace or affect the 'maintainer rating' on the page that displays the version. Right now the rating you see is the one decided by the maintainer of the application and based on their judgement. Now that we have the testing results there is some question of how to reflect these results to users. Certainly if an application has a handful of gold ratings and no maintainer rating it should probably be listed as gold. Do we remove the maintainer rating all together? Add yet another field? Ideas? Personally I'm inclined to remove the maintainer rating and have the application rating be based on some computation based on testing results but there is a question of whether those are reliable enough and whether we want the maintainer to be able to override for some reason. Chris On 10/28/05, Molle Bestefich <molle.bestefich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I wrote:
I want to add "Gold/Silver/Garbage" etc. ratings for Wine 0.9 for some apps.
It doesn't seem like I can do this without erasing the old ratings.
I'm not particularly interested in deleting the results of testing a version of Wine with some app. Could this please be changed to allow more ratings than just one?
(It's also a bit annoying that I have to erase the workarounds to make an app work with <version x> of Wine. What if someone needs to go back to that version to do regression testing? They'll be sc_____... I don't enjoy having to remove perfectly valid information :-(.)
C'mon!.... I promise I won't start a big discussion about this ;-).
I'll even volunteer right now to do this myself, if someone points me at the relevant files+schemas :-)
Chris Morgan wrote:
We just added testing results that include the same gold,silver,bronze, garbage rating and the wine version the user tested with.
Ooh. Neato. Big fan. I'll be honest and say I'm not a big fan of the user interface though. I think there's too much stuff hidden in sub webpages (whatever) which makes entering data cumbersome and error-prone.
I think this does most of what you are looking for
Seems it does, thanks! :-)
although it won't replace or affect the 'maintainer rating' on the page that displays the version.
I'm wondering why not *scratches*.
Right now the rating you see is the one decided by the maintainer of the application and based on their judgement. Now that we have the testing results there is some question of how to reflect these results to users. Certainly if an application has a handful of gold ratings and no maintainer rating it should probably be listed as gold. Do we remove the maintainer rating all together? Add yet another field? Ideas? Personally I'm inclined to remove the maintainer rating
Agreed, nuke it from the web interface and convert the current maintainer ratings to "application test data".
have the application rating be based on some computation based on testing results but there is a question of whether those are reliable enough and whether we want the maintainer to be able to override for some reason.
Computation? Quah? Why not just show the most up-to-date rating? That's what is going to be most precise and what most folks want anyway. (A notice if the rating doesn't match the most recently released Wine might be nice.)
Le vendredi 28 octobre 2005 à 12:36 -0400, Chris Morgan a écrit : [...]
Right now the rating you see is the one decided by the maintainer of the application and based on their judgement. Now that we have the testing results there is some question of how to reflect these results to users. Certainly if an application has a handful of gold ratings and no maintainer rating it should probably be listed as gold. Do we remove the maintainer rating all together? Add yet another field? Ideas? Personally I'm inclined to remove the maintainer rating and have the application rating be based on some computation based on testing results but there is a question of whether those are reliable enough and whether we want the maintainer to be able to override for some reason.
I think the maintainer rating should be removed and the last rating should be used for version rating. If the version is maintained the maintainer can submit test results on a regular basis and thus influence the overall version rating. -- Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ErnstFamily.ch>
This sounds like a plan. If Tony is ok with it we'll schedule to get the maintainer rating removed and replaced by an average of the maintainer rating for the latest wine rev probably middle or late next week. I wanted to get the first pass of the unit testing code in place before we make any more changes so we can reduce the risk of breaking the production site. Chris On 10/28/05, Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ernstfamily.ch> wrote:
Le vendredi 28 octobre 2005 à 12:36 -0400, Chris Morgan a écrit : [...]
Right now the rating you see is the one decided by the maintainer of the application and based on their judgement. Now that we have the testing results there is some question of how to reflect these results to users. Certainly if an application has a handful of gold ratings and no maintainer rating it should probably be listed as gold. Do we remove the maintainer rating all together? Add yet another field? Ideas? Personally I'm inclined to remove the maintainer rating and have the application rating be based on some computation based on testing results but there is a question of whether those are reliable enough and whether we want the maintainer to be able to override for some reason.
I think the maintainer rating should be removed and the last rating should be used for version rating. If the version is maintained the maintainer can submit test results on a regular basis and thus influence the overall version rating. -- Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ErnstFamily.ch>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBDYlZ25uNwURKeRvURAsCOAKCA+b3E5P6zeFv3BfZyiViNYmQ2BACeJ+an K1mXBmF/jW8A0iLLz6aLCvM= =/p/l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I dont think you should be so quick to over-ride that maintainer's evaluation. It would seem likely that they have looked into it a bit deeper than the average user. (Maybe weight the maintainers rating) Also may move to marks out of ten rather than ill-defined garbage...gold. I would doubt anything under wine merits gold and garbage mean many things to many ppl. Using less emotive number ratings allows more objective ratings and finer granularity (0-10 not 0-3) . Equally one digit takes up a lot less space than "garbage" and would allow display of both maintainer and user ratings which is clearly more informative. HTH . On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:08:00 +0200, Chris Morgan <chmorgan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This sounds like a plan. If Tony is ok with it we'll schedule to get the maintainer rating removed and replaced by an average of the maintainer rating for the latest wine rev probably middle or late next week. I wanted to get the first pass of the unit testing code in place before we make any more changes so we can reduce the risk of breaking the production site.
Chris
On 10/28/05, Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ernstfamily.ch> wrote:
Le vendredi 28 octobre 2005 à 12:36 -0400, Chris Morgan a écrit : [...]
Right now the rating you see is the one decided by the maintainer of the application and based on their judgement. Now that we have the testing results there is some question of how to reflect these results to users. Certainly if an application has a handful of gold ratings and no maintainer rating it should probably be listed as gold. Do we remove the maintainer rating all together? Add yet another field? Ideas? Personally I'm inclined to remove the maintainer rating and have the application rating be based on some computation based on testing results but there is a question of whether those are reliable enough and whether we want the maintainer to be able to override for some reason.
I think the maintainer rating should be removed and the last rating should be used for version rating. If the version is maintained the maintainer can submit test results on a regular basis and thus influence the overall version rating. -- Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ErnstFamily.ch>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBDYlZ25uNwURKeRvURAsCOAKCA+b3E5P6zeFv3BfZyiViNYmQ2BACeJ+an K1mXBmF/jW8A0iLLz6aLCvM= =/p/l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 10/28/05, wino(a)piments.com <wino(a)piments.com> wrote:
I dont think you should be so quick to over-ride that maintainer's evaluation. It would seem likely that they have looked into it a bit deeper than the average user. (Maybe weight the maintainers rating)
Shouldn't we listen to the normal user more than a potentially expert maintainer? If normal users try the app and can't run it then we, people involved with wine, are really to blaim. If a maintainer can use their knowledge to make the app run and document it well then users should have success and report success. If normal users can't then we've simply not made it easy enough for them to do or understand. Chris
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:50:41 +0200, Chris Morgan <chmorgan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/28/05, wino(a)piments.com <wino(a)piments.com> wrote:
I dont think you should be so quick to over-ride that maintainer's evaluation. It would seem likely that they have looked into it a bit deeper than the average user. (Maybe weight the maintainers rating)
Shouldn't we listen to the normal user more than a potentially expert maintainer? If normal users try the app and can't run it then we, people involved with wine, are really to blaim. If a maintainer can use their knowledge to make the app run and document it well then users should have success and report success. If normal users can't then we've simply not made it easy enough for them to do or understand.
Chris
That's why I made other suggestions and stated showing both would be more informative. User's may make a half-arsed attempt at installing, not reading the maintainers notes and then moan by posting a poor rating. The two are very different and I dont think it is best to over-ride one with the other either way round. A big difference would then be a pointer to a possible problem either with the installation , the DB entry , or an over-enthusiastic maintainer. Both seems to be the best option for a number of compelling reasons. regards.
participants (4)
-
Chris Morgan -
Jonathan Ernst -
Molle Bestefich -
wino＠piments.com