Hello all, Some software i use has been negatively affected by some patches, namely Ken's work on WGL My question's are:
- If a patch/commit has a bad impact for users why not remove it, especially if a possible solution is not accepted? -This summer sale i bought Tomb Raider 2013 on steam just to find the game playable only with a patch on bugzilla. Is it only a case of the patch not having come through the correct channels.Can it be accepted ? Its not a single case.
All the best everyone.
This would've been more appropriate on wine-users.
- If a patch/commit has a bad impact for users why not remove it, especially
if a possible solution is not accepted?
Reverting it would break whatever that patch was supposed to fix.
-This summer sale i bought Tomb Raider 2013 on steam just to find the game playable only with a patch on bugzilla. Is it only a case of the patch not having come through the correct channels.Can it be accepted ? Its not a single case.
Which bug and patch are you referring to?
Hello,
Sorry if this was on the wrong list :)
Reverting it would break whatever that patch was supposed to fix.
Implementing the correct behaviour is not the best choice if the rest of the structure suffers functional regressions due to it by not being prepared. I know the 1.7.x versions are development releases but if something is not done its go into the stable release.
This bug http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33125 and the latter fix.
2014-07-08 1:21 GMT+01:00 Vincent Povirk madewokherd@gmail.com:
This would've been more appropriate on wine-users.
- If a patch/commit has a bad impact for users why not remove it,
especially
if a possible solution is not accepted?
Reverting it would break whatever that patch was supposed to fix.
-This summer sale i bought Tomb Raider 2013 on steam just to find the
game
playable only with a patch on bugzilla. Is it only a case of the patch
not
having come through the correct channels.Can it be accepted ? Its not a single case.
Which bug and patch are you referring to?
Implementing the correct behaviour is not the best choice if the rest of the structure suffers functional regressions due to it by not being prepared. I know the 1.7.x versions are development releases but if something is not done its go into the stable release.
My understanding is that Ken's work also fixed real applications, and therefore reverting it would also create regressions. At least when we take the correct approach, the bugs can be fixed without introducing new ones.
We shouldn't be making stable releases when a feature like WGL is in the middle of major work.
This bug http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33125 and the latter fix.
If it's the patch adding DECLSPEC_HOTPATCH to CreateSemaphoreExW, that's already in wine and has been since 1.5.28.
"Patch which disables optimization for CreateEventExW" would be rejected in seconds. It looks like something that only works by coincidence.
It seems Anastasius Focht figured out what was really going on and wrote this comment: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33125#c110 . So it just needs someone to write the patch and maybe add a test.
-
Rui Caridade -
Vincent Povirk