[Bug 14810] WinHttp needs to be implemented

[Erich Hoover]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 6:39 PM, James Hawkins <truiken at gmail.com> wrote:

> Exactly.  You open a bug stating that 'Command & Conquere Red Alert 3
> fails to authenticate' and then add in a bug comment that the problem
> is because of missing required winhttp functionality.  Zac then sees
> the bug report and adds his own comment stating whether he has time to
> work on it or not plus any additional information he has to help
> others that want to work on the bug.

I've submitted these kinds of bugs before and they have a tendency to get
closed for not having enough information.  Especially in this case, such a
bug is nearly useless:
1) The Red Alert 3 Beta is locked to a particular license key, which it
associates with a particular PC
2) I do not know what is missing until I implement things, since the entire
DLL is stubs
3) There's no guarantee that the relevant person will ever see the bug
report, Zac was not on the email list for this bug even though it targeted
the winhttp component (there are other bugs in this component and Zac has
not replied to any of them)

> There's really no point in arguing about policy. We don't allow
>
 metabugs, exactly because they serve no purpose and usually hinder the
> development process.

Of the policies posted on the Wine website I have never found anything
related to this discussion (http://wiki.winehq.org/Bugs comes closest, but
does not discuss the issue).  Even if there was such a policy posted, it is
reasonable to discuss re-evaluating it when policy is incongruous with
productivity.  Many open source projects use metabugs, even though I would
say the bug in question is not very "meta," so I'd say that there's a
certain amount of burden of proof necessary before it's accurate to say that
these bugs hinder the development process.

>  My original suggestion was to open a new bug
> report for the fact that C&C doesn't work, and that suggestion still
> stands.

I plan on it, obviously opening a bug that does not fullfil your guidelines
results in it being closed rather than clarified.  I find this behavior
particularly irritating, I'd much prefer to be told to re-title the bug (or
have it re-titled) to say something more specifically related to the
application in question.

>  Please don't top-post on this mailing list.

Sorry, I replied to all and didn't notice the mailing list was on there (and
I was not responding to a specific statement).

>
> --
> James Hawkins
>

Erich Hoover
ehoover at mines.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20080810/b7ff5f27/attachment.htm