[test.winehq.org] missing tests

Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun at rogers.com
Thu Jun 17 23:13:46 CDT 2004

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 03:41:35AM +0200, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> I think separate columns would serve us better by not
> repeating the overly long tags several times. 

Separate columns are good idea if we can get them.

> > For now each submit two: one .zip, one compressed with as
> > a self-extractable.
> I'm not sure I understand this.  The above two should always
> produce the exact same results, shouldn't they?  They
> contain the same executable after all...

Yes, in theory. But before we drop the .zip, we wanted
to make sure this is really the case. Unfortunately, we
can't see the results for now :( Once we make sure the
results are really the same, and the self-expandable
archive is not creating any problems, we can drop the .zip.
Meanwhile, it serves as a test case for doing multiple
submission for the same build id! :)

> Ah, finally I understand you.  I think.  So do you suggest
> that [1] and [2] may mean different things on different
> pages?  That would be possible with what we have now, you
> are right.  I can give it a shot, but only after having some
> sleep and maybe soccer, even.

Right, indeed, that was what I had in mind: [1], [2], etc.
are local to the page, not global. In other words, say that
for build XXX we get get a bunch of returns. We look into
them, and it turns out that the set of distinct URLs that
generated them are URLa, URLb, URLc, URLd. We just pick the
most convenient order (alphabetical would probably be best
to avoid to much variability on how we order them), and
we just list them:

 [0] : URLa
 [1] : URLb
 [2] : URLc
 [3] : URLd

Nothing that we shouldn't be able to do with what we have
now, AFAIU.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list