wine-1.0 goal: fix all reported msi and ole bugs?
I just looked, and there aren't *that* many msi and ole bugs reported in bugzilla. http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-ole&keywords_... lists 37 ole bugs with downloadable demos http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-ole&bug_statu... lists 89 ole bugs total http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-msi&keywords_... lists 35 msi bugs with downloadable demos http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-msi&bug_statu... lists 71 msi bugs total Would it be unreasonable to set a goal of having all msi and ole bugs fixed for wine-1.0 ?
On 6/22/06, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
I just looked, and there aren't *that* many msi and ole bugs reported in bugzilla.
Would it be unreasonable to set a goal of having all msi and ole bugs fixed for wine-1.0 ?
Just to clarify that last statement, you mean all reported msi and ole bugs? My opinion is that this is a reasonable goal for 1.0, and a necessary goal at that. When we say, "1.0 is out!" new users should at least be able to try their software in wine, which requires the installers to work. At this point, at least with msi, fixing the bugs isn't requiring major infrastructure change, just changing the behavior of a certain feature (in most cases). -- James Hawkins
On 6/22/06, James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/22/06, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
I just looked, and there aren't *that* many msi and ole bugs reported in bugzilla.
Would it be unreasonable to set a goal of having all msi and ole bugs fixed for wine-1.0 ?
Just to clarify that last statement, you mean all reported msi and ole bugs?
Yep. Can't fix the unreported ones...
My opinion is that this is a reasonable goal for 1.0, and a necessary goal at that. When we say, "1.0 is out!" new users should at least be able to try their software in wine, which requires the installers to work. At this point, at least with msi, fixing the bugs isn't requiring major infrastructure change, just changing the behavior of a certain feature (in most cases).
Well, it turns out that fixing all reported install bugs at the moment does require some interesting work: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4632 requires msi to support sql joins http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5322 needs a performance registry entry http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5540 requires the msi service! So perhaps some of those could be postponed to after 1.0. But the rest -- the "easy" ones (hah) -- we ought to do. In particular, it'd be great to support widely-used apps like Lotus Notes, whose installer we can't handle well at all right now: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5595 All in favor of getting the Lotus Notes 6.5.x installer working for Wine 1.0, raise your hands... - Dan
On 6/24/06, Ivan Leo Puoti <ivanleo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Are you implying 1.0 should be released with any known bugs at all? I thought only M$ did that sort of stuff. I've never heard of any open source project waiting for all known bugs to be closed before going out of beta. There's always something more to be improved or fixed. 1.0 doesn't mean "perfect"; as I understand it, it means "good enough for normal people to use". That means not having lots of regressions all the time, and not needing extensive configuration before it will run anything properly.
But then I'm not really a developer. -- Vincent Povirk
participants (4)
-
Dan Kegel -
Ivan Leo Puoti -
James Hawkins -
Vincent Povirk