Re: Death to win9x?
Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Sent: Dec 2, 2010 6:30 AM To: Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle(a)t-systems.com Cc: wine-devel(a)winehq.org Subject: Re: Death to win9x?
<Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle(a)t-systems.com> writes:
However, this only allows to run one test at a time, i.e. the big picture is missing. Therefore I'd suggest running winetest.exe on all testbot machines once a week or some such, e.g. only for releases.
That's not useful. The whole point is that we don't want to spend the effort required to keep the tests error-free on platforms that we don't care about. That makes it easier to write tests for platforms that actually matter, which is a more productive use of everybody's time.
YOU might not care about them AJ, but we have Wine users that are still using Windows95 programs with Wine on Linux and there are NO suitable replacements for them. Several recent user reports have asked how do I get program X (released for Windows95) to work on Wine. One of my test programs is dOOmII, released in 1996 and I use Wine to run it. Should I just go out and find a copy of Windows98SE and VirtualBox to run this on? Your reply makes it sound like the Wine program just does not care if Windows9x functionality does not matter, it does. I do agree that not much effort should be expended to incorporate more 'A' functionality, but breaking what does work is not reflect well on this project. Remember the original purpose and I think it is still the purpose is to build out the ENTIRE Windows64/32 API, not just a portion of it. If I'm wrong, feel free to chastise me. James McKenzie
Am 02.12.2010 16:11, schrieb James Mckenzie:
Should I just go out and find a copy of Windows98SE and VirtualBox to run this on? Your reply makes it sound like the Wine program just does not care if Windows9x functionality does not matter, it does. Shutting down the test does not necessary meens wine will break the 9x stuff over time. actually we just always need to do something like skip() or broken() and that's nothing else as ignoring the test results of 9x and as you still play that game i guess wine still works here.
-- Best Regards, André Hentschel
On 12/2/10 10:43 AM, André Hentschel wrote:
Am 02.12.2010 16:11, schrieb James Mckenzie:
Should I just go out and find a copy of Windows98SE and VirtualBox to run this on? Your reply makes it sound like the Wine program just does not care if Windows9x functionality does not matter, it does. Shutting down the test does not necessary meens wine will break the 9x stuff over time. actually we just always need to do something like skip() or broken() and that's nothing else as ignoring the test results of 9x and as you still play that game i guess wine still works here. True, but what happens IF the game stops working? Will a bug report with regression test be accepted or will it be rejected?
You can see there is a little fear if we stop testing Windows9x completely. However, if we move the Windows9x VMs out of the way so we can concentrate on current versions, that is a good idea as some functionality of the current Windows versions does not exist or is vastly different. James McKenzie
James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
True, but what happens IF the game stops working? Will a bug report with regression test be accepted or will it be rejected?
Are you kidding? Something tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You can see there is a little fear if we stop testing Windows9x completely. However, if we move the Windows9x VMs out of the way so we can concentrate on current versions, that is a good idea as some functionality of the current Windows versions does not exist or is vastly different.
Right now all the test results that differ for win9x versions are marked as broken(), i.e. Wine intentionally makes an effort to NOT replicate it. So removing checks for (broken) results will change nothing. People complaining that Wine no more cares about applications written for Win9x should calm down, support for win9x apps and removing broken() statements from tests has no any connection. -- Dmitry.
participants (4)
-
André Hentschel -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
James McKenzie -
James Mckenzie