Jeremy White wrote:
I agree with Andi. Too much useless, redundant data. If you have an issue with Wine, submit it to Bugzilla (bugs.winehq.com). Bugzilla is where Wine bugs belong. The AppDB has to only answer a few simple questions. "Does my app work?" and "How well does my app work?".
I also agree strongly. The old app db failed in part, imo, because it tried to gather too much data.
I wanted to bring up one enhancement that many people I've talked to feel would be a very important improvement to the appdb: get more 'Lawsons'.
The idea is if we can get someone to do for each app in the appdb what Lawson does for Juno, then I believe that Wine will truly start to fly.
So, I guess the concept is sort of an 'owner', or maybe a team of owners for each app. An ideal owner would be someone who: a) Uses the app everyday. b) Uses the app fairly broadly and depends on it. c) Is willing to periodically try CVS builds of Wine and to report regressions.
Further, if we can get an owner for each app who actually uses it, then I think that person would get the opportunity to rate it, and their rating would weigh more heavily than all the other comments.
This is exactly what I am talking about but we are coming at it from different directions. The way I see it the rating page would be the responsability of the app owners. I don't want to rate MS Word because I dont use it. I can rate the apps that I use and the amount of work to do this right is small. I would be willing to"adopt" one or two apps if they were important enough. Maybe others would feel the same way. The reason for having this is so that we have a consistant criteria from one app to the next. I don't want a hundred users giving an opinion. I want a way of measuring/quantifying how we are doing.
Tony Lambregts