<<< A majority of that effort is rewriting tests to make win9x happy, not rewriting behavior to fix win9x applications.
Understood
<<< Few people (if any) want to intentionally break win9x applications, but spending a large amount of developer effort to maintain the tests there isn't really the best investment, when it could instead be spent fixing real bugs.
Regressions are a normal part of large scale development. Regressions are real bugs. Unless you are becoming what you imitate:-)
<<< I could drop the Win9x tests and concentrate on Windows 2000 and higher. Would this be a good course of action?
Drop seems harsh, prioritize seems reasonable. If you are 199% confident nothing you do would affect Win9x (famous developer last words) Or AJ says put the Win9x users in the lifeboat then it's a good course for you And a not so good one for Win9x users.
As the VMs in Testbot are now retired we might want to delete the "old" win9x testdata from test.winehq.org(we need a name for this, testviewer?) manually?
* On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, André Hentschel wrote:
As the VMs in Testbot are now retired we might want to delete the "old" win9x testdata from test.winehq.org(we need a name for this, testviewer?) manually?
Wait, please. Was there some voting been held to make such sentence official? I think no.
* On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
The value of running tests on Win9x these days is certainly questionable. We don't try to emulate the Win9x behavior anyway, except in a very few cases (which most likely don't have tests...)
So would someone try doing this (testing these rare cases, as Jerome Leclanche wrote), one wouldn't have a chance then (except for running Winetest on Win9x manually) ? I disagree.
* On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
That's not useful. The whole point is that we don't want to spend the effort required to keep the tests error-free on platforms that we don't care about. That makes it easier to write tests for platforms that actually matter, which is a more productive use of everybody's time.
I believe most of devs writing test cases don't care about Win9x branch already. Here reds count about 5x more than reds from WinNT branch.
* On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Right now all the test results that differ for win9x versions are marked as broken(),
Dmitry, you are mistaken. I put the ERROR_NOT_LOGGED_ON case for Win98 in 2005[*], and it's still not broken(). How were you checking that?
[*] http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commitdiff;h=5cd099290c5333206e25fd...
In the worst case I would agree with alternative ways around:
1, to hide Win9x data by moving it to some other page (/data_all);
2, to separate tests into winetest-HASH.exe and winetest9x-HASH.EXE. This would require separate page for the (9x or total) data also.
Thanks all for reading this long, S.
On 12/3/10 11:15 AM, André Hentschel wrote:
As the VMs in Testbot are now retired we might want to delete the "old" win9x testdata from test.winehq.org(we need a name for this, testviewer?) manually?
André:
I almost have to agree with this because we should not expect improvements for these versions. However, I'm thinking of making a change to the richedit test as a prototype to a final introduction for what should be an improvement over using broken() for test cases for the older versions of Windows. The reason I'm picking on richedit is because there is vastly different results for the various riched versions that came with Windows 9x/ME and the current functionality.
James McKenzie
On 12/3/10 7:15 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
As the VMs in Testbot are now retired we might want to delete the "old" win9x testdata from test.winehq.org(we need a name for this, testviewer?) manually?
I don't think we need it. We may just start rejecting new reports and old ones will disappear from the report page after some time.
Jacek
-
André Hentschel -
Jacek Caban -
James McKenzie -
K.King -
Saulius Krasuckas