A user sent this to the appdb mailing list. I thought the talkback idea was an interesting one that we might want to consider now that we are nearing 1.0.
Chris
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: suggest Appdb Date: Thursday 27 October 2005 10:02 pm From: "Elektro Schock" elektroschock@linuxmail.org To: appdb@winehq.org
"Email your suggestions for improving the AppDB"
Well,
1. what I would like to see are Wine talkback versions
a) terminal output + related app + wine version + other config b) delete dublicates c) automatical submission to a server d) add to app specific database if not dublicate
Benefits: * Wine developers are able to determine what console output is generated when using the software * It is traceable what real applications will get improved when a certain FIXME is fixed and what applications depend on a bug. * app related bug reporting via automation * it is possible to limit reporting to certain apps e.g. gold and silver apps only or certain types of bugs and to set a time limit for the talkback feature, so you get no old version reports. * you can determine what applications were tried by users and whether problems still exist * bug reporting becomes easier.
2. Where do I find documentation about the different kinds of wine bugs reported at the console?
err fixme Unexpected calls bugs invoking wine-dbg etc.
When you run an application with you run into "bugs". But certainly there often is no strict severity. What are severe errors that need to get reported? What are just unimplemented features?
I further assume that bugzilla FIXMEs are not the same as console output FIXMEs
-- _______________________________________________ Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
Powered by Outblaze
-------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 04:22:29 +0200, Chris Morgan cmorgan@alum.wpi.edu wrote:
I thought the talkback idea was an interesting one that we might want to consider now that we are nearing 1.0. Chris
LOL. It's taken 10 yrs to get to beta, so "nearing 1.0" should be taken in context!
Hi,
On 10/28/05, peter@piments.com peter@piments.com wrote:
LOL. It's taken 10 yrs to get to beta, so "nearing 1.0" should be taken in context!
The beta process is going to be short. At wineconf I think Alexandre said he wants to release a 1.0 by the end of the year.
Thanks Steven
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:17:42 +0200, Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 10/28/05, peter@piments.com peter@piments.com wrote:
LOL. It's taken 10 yrs to get to beta, so "nearing 1.0" should be taken in context!
The beta process is going to be short. At wineconf I think Alexandre said he wants to release a 1.0 by the end of the year.
Thanks Steven
Well I certainly wish everyone involved the best of luck in achieving that goal. It would be great to see.
Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com writes:
The beta process is going to be short. At wineconf I think Alexandre said he wants to release a 1.0 by the end of the year.
I never said anything like that...
Hopefully it won't take too long, but we still have a lot of work to do on usability issues (winecfg, desktop mode, cdrom support, systray, etc.), and we need better support for the various code obfuscation tools, it's probably the number one cause of apps not even starting today.
etc.), and we need better support for the various code obfuscation tools, it's probably the number one cause of apps not even starting today.
Does that include things like Safedisk, Securom and other cd copy protections?
Jonathan Wilson jonwil@tpgi.com.au writes:
etc.), and we need better support for the various code obfuscation tools, it's probably the number one cause of apps not even starting today.
Does that include things like Safedisk, Securom and other cd copy protections?
As far as possible, yes. I think the goal for 1.0 should be that anybody has to be able to try Wine and see that it's for real. This means they must not be stopped either by not being able to configure it, or by apps failing to even start.
As far as possible, yes. I think the goal for 1.0 should be that anybody has to be able to try Wine and see that it's for real. This means they must not be stopped either by not being able to configure it, or by apps failing to even start.
I look forward to a day when vanilla WINE is good enough such that WineX/Cdega is no longer required :)
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com writes:
The beta process is going to be short. At wineconf I think Alexandre said he wants to release a 1.0 by the end of the year.
I never said anything like that...
Hopefully it won't take too long, but we still have a lot of work to do on usability issues (winecfg, desktop mode, cdrom support, systray, etc.), and we need better support for the various code obfuscation tools, it's probably the number one cause of apps not even starting today.
Any chance we can have a tasks list for Wine 1.0 ?
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Chris Morgan -
Christian Costa -
Jonathan Wilson -
peter＠piments.com -
Steven Edwards