AppDB: Rating / Patching

[Nathaniel Gray]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Nathaniel Gray <n8gray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't
>> descriptive enough.  It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given
>> program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder
>> how well it will work.  It's also reasonable to wonder how it will
>> work with a vanilla version.  Both types of reports are useful to have
>> in the appdb.  Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to
>> reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated.
>
> No. Because that allows for all sorts of dirty hacks, and is confusing
> to users. Ratings should specify default wine. They can list patches,
> etc., in the comments, with a note of how well it works.

It seems to me that digging through comments to find out if a report
refers to a version that was patched is more confusing than having it
advertised right up front in the version string.  And it makes sense
-- a patched 1.1.11 is not the same *version* as 1.1.11.

Cheers,
-n8

-- 
Nathan Gray
http://www.n8gray.org/