March 2012 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: 'Pending' patches state

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > The pending state is feedback. It means that the patch is not clearly > correct, but that it's complicated to articulate exactly why. Like it > says, you should try to make it more convincing, either by simplifying > the patch, or writing a test case. I'm sorry, but that's not a feedback, and casual contributors may even not be aware of that patch tracking page. And as I mentioned if the patch already contains the tests it's not really obvious what should be added in addition. In the light of recent discussions about friendliness to users in bugzilla, I think that developers deserve at least small fraction of friendliness as well (Alexandre, you are nice and friendly all the time, but at least I sometimes feel like sending the patches to a blackwhole). > For instance your patch 84692 says that "tests confirm that", but you > don't say which tests, and there are no new tests or fixed todos in the > patch, so it looks suspicious. Yes, I could dig out the tests myself and > investigate it in detail, but when it gets to that point I usually just > move on to the next patch, hence "pending". There is not much tests for SetParent, and 84692 suggests to look at the tests added by http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2011-February/098711.html WM_SHOWWINDOW at the start and at the end of every message sequence means that ShowWindow() should be used to hide and show the window during SetParent call processing. But even the same patch sent another day after the tests http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2011-February/098748.html didn't get any feedback and died in the pending state. Taking an opportunity to discuss other my patches :) I'd like to get a comment to 84685 as well. Thanks. -- Dmitry.

March 28, 2012

Re: [PATCH 1/5] winex11: Use GLX_DONT_CARE instead of ~0 in ConvertAttribWGLtoGLX().

by Henri Verbeet

On 28 March 2012 07:24, Chris Robinson <chris.kcat(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 8:35:49 PM Henri Verbeet wrote: >> - int pixelattrib = ~0; >> + int pixelattrib = GLX_DONT_CARE; > > I want to say there's a reason we used ~0 instead of GLX_DONT_CARE, but it's > been too long that I can't remember. I think it was because GLX_DONT_CARE > didn't include all possibilities that ~0 would, like what WGL wanted. > Well, GLX_DONT_CARE is ~0, and GLX_DONT_CARE is how the driver is going to interpret this, the patch just gets rid of a magic constant. (For the background on this, this patch was prompted by http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/piglit/2012-March/002132.html to the piglit mailing list, which is related to fd.o 47478 and winehq 26763.)

March 28, 2012

Re: 'Pending' patches state

by Alexandre Julliard

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes: > It's very confusing, and absolutely not clear what is required from the > patch submitter, especially since *there is no any feedback on the patch*. > 'Rejected' at least requies some sort of feedback, while 'Pending' doesn't. > To me 'Pending' looks like a silent case of 'Reject', but without any > obligation to explain why. > > I find myself on somewhat shaky ground when I see a bunch of my patches > in the pending state, especially if they already contain the tests and > main developer in the area I'm changing is Alexandre :). > > Is it possible to get at least some feedback for pending patches? Pretty > please? The pending state is feedback. It means that the patch is not clearly correct, but that it's complicated to articulate exactly why. Like it says, you should try to make it more convincing, either by simplifying the patch, or writing a test case. For instance your patch 84692 says that "tests confirm that", but you don't say which tests, and there are no new tests or fixed todos in the patch, so it looks suspicious. Yes, I could dig out the tests myself and investigate it in detail, but when it gets to that point I usually just move on to the next patch, hence "pending". -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

March 28, 2012

Re: [4/4] scrrun: Add scrrun tests (try 2)

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17522 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Make failed

March 28, 2012

Re: [PATCH 1/5] winex11: Use GLX_DONT_CARE instead of ~0 in ConvertAttribWGLtoGLX().

by Chris Robinson

On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 8:35:49 PM Henri Verbeet wrote: > - int pixelattrib = ~0; > + int pixelattrib = GLX_DONT_CARE; I want to say there's a reason we used ~0 instead of GLX_DONT_CARE, but it's been too long that I can't remember. I think it was because GLX_DONT_CARE didn't include all possibilities that ~0 would, like what WGL wanted.

March 28, 2012

'Pending' patches state

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Hello, http://source.winehq.org/patches has the following legend for the Pending patch status: Pending * The patch is not obviously correct at first glance. Making a more convincing argument, preferably in the form of a test case, may help. * Waiting for feedback from the main developer in that area. It's very confusing, and absolutely not clear what is required from the patch submitter, especially since *there is no any feedback on the patch*. 'Rejected' at least requies some sort of feedback, while 'Pending' doesn't. To me 'Pending' looks like a silent case of 'Reject', but without any obligation to explain why. I find myself on somewhat shaky ground when I see a bunch of my patches in the pending state, especially if they already contain the tests and main developer in the area I'm changing is Alexandre :). Is it possible to get at least some feedback for pending patches? Pretty please? -- Dmitry.

March 28, 2012

Re: po: Update German translation

by Julian Rüger

Hi André, Am Dienstag, den 27.03.2012, 21:43 +0200 schrieb André Hentschel: > --- > po/de.po | 7 +++---- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > #: jscript.rc:37 >-#, fuzzy > #| msgid "Invalid parameter.\n" > msgid "Invalid character" >-msgstr "Ungültiger Parameter.\n" >+msgstr "Ungültiges Zeichen" du solltest die alte msgid auch entfernen. (Ist ein neues Feature, wurden schon andere drauf hingewiesen ;) Viele Grüsse, Julian

March 28, 2012

Re: [PATCH] devenum: Add tests for devenum. (try 2)

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17512 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Make failed

March 27, 2012

Re: [PATCH] devenum: Add tests for devenum.

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17507 Your paranoid android. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit devenum) === devenum.c:59: Test failed: Cannot create CLSID_SystemDeviceEnum object (res = 80040154)

March 27, 2012

Re: [PATCH 1/2] winmm: Support DRVM_MAPPER_PREFERRED_GET in waveXxxMessage

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17495 Your paranoid android. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit capture) === capture.c:648: Test failed: waveInMessage(DRVM_MAPPER_PREFERRED_GET) failed: 6 capture.c:653: Test failed: Got invalid preferred device: 0x22fe5c === W2KPROSP4 (32 bit capture) === capture.c:648: Test failed: waveInMessage(DRVM_MAPPER_PREFERRED_GET) failed: 6 capture.c:653: Test failed: Got invalid preferred device: 0x235370 === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit wave) === wave.c:1386: Test failed: waveOutMessage(DRVM_MAPPER_PREFERRED_GET) failed: 6 wave.c:1391: Test failed: Got invalid preferred device: 0x234098 === W2KPROSP4 (32 bit wave) === wave.c:1386: Test failed: waveOutMessage(DRVM_MAPPER_PREFERRED_GET) failed: 6 wave.c:1391: Test failed: Got invalid preferred device: 0x41

March 27, 2012