On 4/24/22 11:48, Austin English wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 07:17 Nikolay Sivov <nsivov@codeweavers.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/22 11:57, Mohamad Al-Jaf wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 4:01 AM Nikolay Sivov <nsivov@codeweavers.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> What I mean is, have you checked that?
>>> Why would that be necessary? It's clear that the game tries to load
>>> mshtmlmedia under Windows 7 so why wouldn't this be the case in Wine
>>> running in Windows 7 mode?
>> Testing on wine would be necessary to see if it's needed.
>
> I have to agree with Mohamad here. AFAIK, it's never been a requirement
> that a patch actually be verified before committing it:
>
> 1) I don't see it mentioned on https://wiki.winehq.org/Submitting_Patches
>
> 2) There are over a thousand bugs that have been closed fixed that contain
> the comment 'Should be fixed by':
> https://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CLOSED&limit=0&list_id=762726&longdesc=should%20be%20fixed%20by&longdesc_type=substring&order=bug_id&product=Wine&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED
>
> (I realize that isn't an accurate count, but demonstrates my broader point).

Your point is that there are more CLOSED/FIXED reports that don't have
"should be fixed by" ? One way to improve this situation was to link bug
urls in commit messages. We should definitely continue improving it, for
better traceability.

If you mean that "should be fixed" translates to "I think it might be

fixed, but I'm not sure", in my experience it usually means the
opposite, when commenter actually tested it one or another to make sure.

>
> If there's constructive feedback that hasn't been given, by all means, give
> it, but "it hasn't been explicitly tested" isn't a reason to block in
> standard wine development. Maybe we should revisit that, but until we do, I
> don't think it should block this patch.
>

It depends really. In this case it's some internal IE11 (or maybe a bit
older) module, with only justification that some users, running actual
Windows 7 installation, found it useful. Second example is that it was
mentioned in chromium sources somewhere. Is it unreasonable to discuss
if it's useful for Wine?

At the same time, I agree of course that just the contributor's desire
to work on something is enough to consider submitted work. For this
patch what kind of feedback would you expect?

P.S. needless to say, my replies are my own, I don't have the power to
reject submitted work, nor would I like to have it.