http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15419
--- Comment #12 from t3g milest3g@gmail.com 2008-12-19 11:34:52 ---
No. Your metric are highly skewed. Many users are building from source or from unofficial/semiofficial repositories, with unstable wine.
Last number I had for Ubuntu was that 10% of the user had wine installed. That's close to a million (800000 if somebody wants to be pompous), and there's not many chances they're all building from git or even touched theyr /etc/apt/source.list (since even that is considered as hard by most users on the Ubuntu's forums).
Of course, the numbers are reversed if you only consider those that contribute to AppDB - but that's what we're here for. However, the majority of users are running stable releases.
I just don't think that's a worthy goal, as it would encourage people to stick to stable, and never test unstable. When a new stable is released, and their app is broken, they'll be surprised, but how could it have been fixed if a bug was never filed.
People that fill test data don't do it for bragging right. If we maintain apps and test them with each unstable release, it's not because we can't fill test data for stable ones. Assuming that we'd stop doing so if we could also fill test data for stable release isn't just pompous, it's insulting.
When a new stable is released, and their app is broken, they'll be surprised, but how could it have been fixed if a bug was never filed. The first thing we do when a bug is filed on 1.0.1 is ask them to upgrade to unstable...
It's a different conception of treating our users. Do we force them to be beta testers for the "greater good", knowing that most won't bother learning to use bugzilla and fill bug reports, or do we consider them as users and rely on the ones that would have volunteered to be tester anyway?
The source is there if someone wants to patch it to always include 1.0.1.
That's oh so nice. However, whoever's going to learn how to do that might as well learn C, fix all the remaining bugs in wine and be done with.