I'm just sending this out as a reminder for everyone to book your hotel room for WineConf. For more information, check out:
1. http://www.winehq.com/site/wineconf 2. http://www.winehq.com/site/wineconf/travel
The last day to reserve a room is tomorrow - March 17th. There's no guarantee rooms will be available after that, and I don't have any indication the hotel will allow reservations after that. If you haven't looked at the details, it's a great deal - 81EUR for Friday and Saturday night and it includes breakfast in the morning.
If you're thinking to yourself, "I'd like to go to Wineconf, but I don't think I'm cool enough." Well, you should try to attend. You'll probably really enjoy it.
PS - still looking for ideas for the agenda, if you have any, let me know. Also let me know if you'd like to present something.
-Brian
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:45:47 -0700, Brian Vincent brian.vincent@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just sending this out as a reminder for everyone to book your hotel room for WineConf. For more information, check out:
The last day to reserve a room is tomorrow - March 17th. There's no guarantee rooms will be available after that, and I don't have any indication the hotel will allow reservations after that. If you haven't looked at the details, it's a great deal - 81EUR for Friday and Saturday night and it includes breakfast in the morning.
They are already completely booked... they replied "At this time we have not any rooms" this afternoon.
Paul
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:08:29 +0100, Paul van Schayck polleke@gmail.com wrote:
They are already completely booked... they replied "At this time we have not any rooms" this afternoon.
This happened a few weeks ago and they did have rooms available. Did you include the keyword "WINECON" with your reservation request? As far as I know we're still ok - the RSVP list is still slightly less than the number of rooms we've got, plus we know some people on the RSVP list aren't staying there.
I'm CC'ing our local contact to see if he can find out what's going on. Hopefully we're still ok on rooms. Mr. Schmid - can you email Paul as well as cc the wine-devel@winehq.org list when you find out?
-Brian
Brian Vincent wrote:
I PS - still looking for ideas for the agenda, if you have any, let me know. Also let me know if you'd like to present something.
Apart from all of Wine, I'm always interested in the conformance testing. I believe it's crucial in speeding up Wines' development. For each bug found, it is often a good idea to write an automatic regression test.
Maybe we can extend on the winetest.exe infrastructure. I would like to see testing done in realtime - we now have a turnaround of maybe 3-4 days for a test developer like myself. I do a tiny, tiny patch, and then wait 3-4 days to see how it behaves on 6 platforms.
What I would like to see: a "cluster" of Windows machines with different versions, all waiting eagerly for a small test.exe to appear. A dispatcher receives tests and then distributes it to waiting Windows machines. As soon as machine has run a test, it is rebooted. Preferrably from a clean vmware image.
Mockup example:
jakov@black:~/src/wine/dlls/kernel/tests$ make testgrid_file i586-mingw32msvc-gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../../include -I../../../include -D_REENTRANT -fPIC -Wall -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -fno-strict-aliasing -gstabs+ -Wpointer-arith -g -O2 -o file.cross.o file.c file.c:1: warning: -fPIC ignored for target (all code is position independent) i586-mingw32msvc-gcc alloc.cross.o atom.cross.o change.cross.o codepage.cross.o comm.cross.o console.cross.o directory.cross.o drive.cross.o environ.cross.o file.cross.o format_msg.cross.o generated.cross.o heap.cross.o locale.cross.o module.cross.o mailslot.cross.o path.cross.o pipe.cross.o process.cross.o profile.cross.o thread.cross.o time.cross.o timer.cross.o virtual.cross.o testlist.cross.o -o kernel32_crosstest.exe -lkernel32 i586-mingw32msvc-strip kernel32_crosstest.exe upx kernel32_crosstest.exe gpg --sign kernel32_crosstest.exe > kernel32_crosstest.sig tar -cf kernel32_crosstest.tar kernel32_crosstest.exe kernel32_crosstest.sig wget http://testgrid.winehq.org/gridtest.cgi --post-file=kernel32_crosstest.tar --output-document=testgrid_file.txt jakov@black:~/src/wine/dlls/kernel/tests$ jakov@black:~/src/wine/dlls/kernel/tests$ jakov@black:~/src/wine/dlls/kernel/tests$ cat testgrid_file.txt Windows 2000 begin: file.c:1384: Test failed: DeleteFileA: error 3 file: 487732 tests executed, 0 marked as todo, 1 failure. End Windows 2000. Windows 98 begin: file.c:804: Test failed: MoveFileA: unexpected error 3 file.c:1384: Test failed: DeleteFileA: error 3 file: 487732 tests executed, 0 marked as todo, 2 failures. End Windows 98. Windows XP begin: file: 487732 tests executed, 0 marked as todo, 0 failures. End Windows XP. Windows NT4 begin: file: 487732 tests executed, 0 marked as todo, 0 failures. End Windows NT4. jakov@black:~/src/wine/dlls/kernel/tests$ jakov@black:~/src/wine/dlls/kernel/tests$ jakov@black:~/src/wine/dlls/kernel/tests$
regards, Jakob
On Thursday 17 March 2005 10:33, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Apart from all of Wine, I'm always interested in the conformance testing. I believe it's crucial in speeding up Wines' development. For each bug found, it is often a good idea to write an automatic regression test.
Yes, although that's a rather weary job, which no one enjoys doing :^/
Maybe we can extend on the winetest.exe infrastructure. I would like to see testing done in realtime [...]
There's three issues here:
o fast(er) update of CVS (or whatever filestore we're using).
This would need either: * a super-charged Alexandre ;) or * a separate CVS tree in which developers can edit the wine/dlls/*/tests/ directory, or * give up on centralised/distributed testing architecture and switch to a personal testing environment.
o fast(er) build of winetest.exe
I originally argued for async. winetests and went as far as implementing this as part of WRT, so in principles this is already done. WRT worked based on the email notification of CVS updates. Builds, with minor changes, doesn't take long (using ccache), so you're probably looking 10-20 minutes turn around, with whatever delay the test-clients introduce.
Though, without fixing the first issue, this doesn't help us much.
o fast(er) running, through vmware platforms.
Sure, this can be done, but its a distributed model, so everyone can chip in. Shouldn't be too difficult to achieve this.
Just my 2-c worth :)
Paul.
Paul Millar wrote:
On Thursday 17 March 2005 10:33, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Apart from all of Wine, I'm always interested in the conformance testing. I believe it's crucial in speeding up Wines' development. For each bug found, it is often a good idea to write an automatic regression test.
Yes, although that's a rather weary job, which no one enjoys doing :^/
I do! Maybe I have a condition, but I really love doing it! :-)
There's three issues here:
Yes.
o fast(er) update of CVS (or whatever filestore we're using).
This would need either: * a super-charged Alexandre ;) or * a separate CVS tree in which developers can edit the wine/dlls/*/tests/ directory,
This makes sense. Winetest could actually be a separate project. I'm not saying it should be, mind you, just that conformance testing is interesting not only for Wine, but for Windows developers in general.
So a separate CVS tree makes a great deal of sense, IMHO. Wine could import snapshots of the tests for its' conformance testing. This could speed up test development considerably, I imagine.
or * give up on centralised/distributed testing architecture and switch to a personal testing environment.
o fast(er) build of winetest.exe
I originally argued for async. winetests and went as far as implementing this as part of WRT, so in principles this is already done. WRT worked based on the email notification of CVS updates. Builds, with minor changes, doesn't take long (using ccache), so you're probably looking 10-20 minutes turn around, with whatever delay the test-clients introduce.
Though, without fixing the first issue, this doesn't help us much.
o fast(er) running, through vmware platforms.
Sure, this can be done, but its a distributed model, so everyone can chip in. Shouldn't be too difficult to achieve this.
Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Test servers could register in the cluster worldwide. (Although I originally imagined a very centralized solution with a big server running vmware images.)
Just my 2-c worth :)
Are you coming to wineconf?
regards, Jakob
On Thursday 17 March 2005 11:51, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Paul Millar wrote:
[writing tests]'s a rather weary job, which no one enjoys doing :^/
I do! Maybe I have a condition, but I really love doing it! :-)
Long may that continue!
[...]
[separate CVS tree]
This makes sense. Winetest could actually be a separate project. I'm not saying it should be, mind you, just that conformance testing is interesting not only for Wine, but for Windows developers in general.
So a separate CVS tree makes a great deal of sense, IMHO. Wine could import snapshots of the tests for its' conformance testing. This could speed up test development considerably, I imagine.
I'd tread careful here: this isn't a panacea.
Yes, its fairly easy to *say* OK, we just merge in the new tests, but would merging the snapshots really be a trivial job? If it is non-trivial, then Alexandre would front at least some of it and I suspect making more work for Alexandre is the last thing anyone (including Alexandre :^) would want.
On top of that, there would be many other issues, e.g. How the diffs between the two trees were presented? How the changes in wine would be merged back into the winetest tree? What happens to patches that Alexandre rejects (coz they're just wrong)?
Ultimately, its Alexandre's call (and I think I can guess his answer).
[...]
Are you coming to wineconf?
All things being equal, yes.
Cheers,
Paul.
Paul Millar wrote:
On Thursday 17 March 2005 11:51, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Paul Millar wrote:
[writing tests]'s a rather weary job, which no one enjoys doing :^/
I do! Maybe I have a condition, but I really love doing it! :-)
Long may that continue!
Thanks, I hope so too! :-)
Only my day job and things like planning a marriage stops me from digging deep into Wine testing.
[..]
I'd tread careful here: this isn't a panacea.
Yes, its fairly easy to *say* OK, we just merge in the new tests, but would merging the snapshots really be a trivial job? If it is non-trivial, then Alexandre would front at least some of it and I suspect making more work for Alexandre is the last thing anyone (including Alexandre :^) would want.
Ouch. Of course, should have thought of that. Maybe we need a patch penguin?
regards, Jakob
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Ouch. Of course, should have thought of that. Maybe we need a patch penguin?
CVS actually handles 'vendor branches' fairly nicely. It should be possible for Jakob (or whoever else decides to be the 'test penguin') to maintain his own 'testing' CVS tree, with rapid development, etc, and periodically resync his own tree to canonical Wine CVS (using the vendor branch functionality) and then create large-ish 'tests-only' chunks from that to throw at Alexandre "once in a while".
There really shouldn't be much reason for Alexandre to reject patches that touch tests only; after all, if the tests pass on windows, they should pass on wine, no matter how evil they look. (Well, within reason.)
That's MHO, at least. If I understand correctly, the primary reason for the 'testing' CVS is just to manage distribution of proposed tests to a server farm of test-runners; which is slightly different from the purpose of the mainline CVS tree. [Also -- a decoupled 'testing' CVS like I describe above can be implemented by the motivated folks w/o Alexandre's involvement at all, which permits judgements to be postponed until we've got some evidence of usefulness.]
In this vein -- where *is* the current testing infrastructre located? I'm pretty new to Wine, and I couldn't find any links from winehq. [These should probably be added, or made more visible if they do exist, especially if the goal is to encourage test submission with patch submission.] --scott
LIONIZER class struggle SCRANGER ESGAIN overthrow GRALLSPICE UKUSA tonight EZLN Sudan NSA KMFLUSH PBPRIME mail drop Leitrim IDEA AELADLE ( http://cscott.net/ )
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Ouch. Of course, should have thought of that. Maybe we need a patch penguin?
CVS actually handles 'vendor branches' fairly nicely. It should be possible for Jakob (or whoever else decides to be the 'test penguin') to maintain his own 'testing' CVS tree, with rapid development, etc, and periodically resync his own tree to canonical Wine CVS (using the vendor branch functionality) and then create large-ish 'tests-only' chunks from that to throw at Alexandre "once in a while".
There really shouldn't be much reason for Alexandre to reject patches that touch tests only; after all, if the tests pass on windows, they should pass on wine, no matter how evil they look. (Well, within reason.)
That's MHO, at least. If I understand correctly, the primary reason for the 'testing' CVS is just to manage distribution of proposed tests to a server farm of test-runners; which is slightly different from the purpose of the mainline CVS tree. [Also -- a decoupled 'testing' CVS like I describe above can be implemented by the motivated folks w/o Alexandre's involvement at all, which permits judgements to be postponed until we've got some evidence of usefulness.]
Yes. And I think I can implement most of even the more elaborate schemes without initially disturbing Alexandre or anyone else. As you say, until we get more evidence of usefulness.
In this vein -- where *is* the current testing infrastructre located? I'm pretty new to Wine, and I couldn't find any links from winehq. [These should probably be added, or made more visible if they do exist, especially if the goal is to encourage test submission with patch submission.]
regards, Jakob
Maybe one could script something up so that a commit to tests CVS would not be *possible* without a confirmed test pass on Windows 95, NT, 2000 and XP. That'd be the best thing since sliced bread.
regards, Jakob
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Maybe one could script something up so that a commit to tests CVS would not be *possible* without a confirmed test pass on Windows 95, NT, 2000 and XP.
That would be very hard to do and mostly pointless for drivers.
Ivan.
Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Maybe one could script something up so that a commit to tests CVS would not be *possible* without a confirmed test pass on Windows 95, NT, 2000 and XP.
That would be very hard to do and mostly pointless for drivers.
Sometimes hard is worthwile. At least to me.
regards, Jakob
On Thursday 17 March 2005 11:54, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Maybe one could script something up so that a commit to tests CVS would not be *possible* without a confirmed test pass on Windows 95, NT, 2000 and XP. That'd be the best thing since sliced bread.
CVS supports doing some server-side validation tests before accepting a commit, so it could be done; but I don't think this would be "nice". CVS is a mechanism for sharing code: its not really a testing framework.
There would be potential issues with CVS locking, timeouts (e.g. what happens if the XP machine dies?), but the real issue is it would just gets in the way of developers by making the CVS server fragile.
For the testing framework, I'd say what we have just now is fine. It lives outside (and on top of) CVS. Having broken tests is OK, provided they're fixed within a suitable time-scale [*].
(just my 2c-worth again)
Cheers,
Paul
[*] -- Of course, what is the "suitable time-scale"? who's willing to make sure things get fixed?
Paul Millar wrote:
On Thursday 17 March 2005 11:54, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Maybe one could script something up so that a commit to tests CVS would not be *possible* without a confirmed test pass on Windows 95, NT, 2000 and XP. That'd be the best thing since sliced bread.
CVS supports doing some server-side validation tests before accepting a commit, so it could be done; but I don't think this would be "nice". CVS is a mechanism for sharing code: its not really a testing framework.
I didn't mean exactly on the CVS level. When Alexandre commits any patch, he first checks that the code still passes regression tests.
I want something similar for the test patches. Maybe like this: the testing dispatcher signs a working patch* with GPG. (Or no GPG. Just set a flag somewhere. Details are not important.)
Alexandre will see this flag when saving a patch from wine-patches@winehq and know that the patch is OK as far as the test grid is concerned.
It could be as non-intrusive as this: the test dispatcher monitors the wine-patches@winehq for patches. As soon as it sees a patch it recognises and knows it has tested, it sends a mail to wine-patches akin to:
The patch with CRC32 so-and-so posted by him or her, named so-and-so is hereby verified by me, the Wine Regression Grid Tester. **
or
The patch with CRC32 so-and-so posted by him or her, named so-and-so failed under the following versions of Windows; bla bla blah, with the following error message: blah blah bla some more. Truthfully yours, the Wine Regression Grid Tester. **
Then it's up to Alexandre if he wants to commit a test which the grid tester has rejected, or for which there is no confirmation.
If you don't like the idea of a program spamming wine-patches, it could be separate list, or a webpage with a copy of wine-patches, with different messages colour-codes updated as they get tested by the grid tester.
* A working patch is a patch that has been tested and found working on Win 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000 and XP.
** Could we call it WineGrind? :-)
For the testing framework, I'd say what we have just now is fine. It lives outside (and on top of) CVS. Having broken tests is OK, provided they're fixed within a suitable time-scale [*].
Actually, I think having broken tests is not OK. It not only goes against my zealotry for Extreme Programming, it's also very annoying when I have _no_clue_ how to fix a broken test and the author is missing or don't want to touch the code with a ten foot stick.
(just my 2c-worth again)
Cheers,
Paul
[*] -- Of course, what is the "suitable time-scale"? who's willing to make sure things get fixed?
Exactly, I feel rage everytime I see those red and yellow boxes at http://test.winehq.org/data/ ;-)
regards, Jakob
Brian Vincent wrote:
PS - still looking for ideas for the agenda, if you have any, let me know. Also let me know if you'd like to present something.
Will anyone demo CXtest? I think it would be great.
regards, Jakob
Will anyone demo CXtest? I think it would be great.
I think that's one of those topics that Brian is holding in reserve; we'll be more than happy to demo it.
Jer
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:35:25AM -0600, Jeremy White wrote:
Will anyone demo CXtest? I think it would be great.
I think that's one of those topics that Brian is holding in reserve; we'll be more than happy to demo it.
Nice stuff!
Will you have decided by then whether to call it CXtest, Cxtest, CxTest or CXTEST? ;-) (YES, I've seen all of those!)
Andreas
Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:35:25AM -0600, Jeremy White wrote:
Will anyone demo CXtest? I think it would be great.
I think that's one of those topics that Brian is holding in reserve; we'll be more than happy to demo it.
Nice stuff!
Will you have decided by then whether to call it CXtest, Cxtest, CxTest or CXTEST? ;-) (YES, I've seen all of those!)
Andreas
The logo on the website is CXtest.
A bit OT, well kinda.
I'm trying to stabilize offscreen rendering in DirectX 9, I know Jason was thinking of doing a demo.
Is there going to be another wine release before wine conf so I can merge DirectX and do you still plan to do a demo Jason, if so what are you time-lines for something stable?
for anyone who's interested Offscreen rendering is hitting state blocks quite a bit, since stateblocks is next on my list of patches to merge with wine I thought it would be a good idea to do some work upfront instead of sending in lots of patches that change things around a lot.
ICQ 169222899 MSN oliverthered@hotmail.com
-
Andreas Mohr -
Brian Vincent -
C. Scott Ananian -
Ivan Leo Puoti -
Jakob Eriksson -
Jeremy White -
Oliver Stieber -
Paul Millar -
Paul van Schayck