Vijay Kiran Kamuju
infyquest at gmail.com
Mon Aug 11 20:13:28 CDT 2008
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com> wrote:
> Vijay Kiran Kamuju <infyquest at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ok I was expressing my concern as it took around 2-3hrs to see my
>> patch in the patchwatcher.
> It's running on a 1GHz single core machine right now.
> I'll probably put it on something rather faster.
Something around 2GHz would be ok
>> Also as you you running the wine tests all for each patch are you
>> cleaning the .wine directory ( I am bit confused here)
> No. Probably should, but I'm not.
I think you should do that, if there are some changes that involve
wineserver and some change to registry.
>> It would better if we have a parallelized version of the tests also
>> run on a fast m/c.
> I do have a patch that enables parallel execution of conformance
> tests, I hope Alexandre accepts it. That will help on multicore
> systems. Beyond that, I could fairly easily use multiple machines,
> e.g. assign all patches to machines based on md5sum.
Ok, it would be interesting how parallelization could affect wine :)
>> Also can you improve the messages.
> Yes. I already changed the success message to make more sense,
> and added background colors of green and red for success and failure.
Also add Yellow for ignored patches.
For ignored patches /i would like to add a second pass, when have to
check if the patch is generated by git or not
if not patch is being ignored now, for that we need to process the
patch to see whether we can extract some info to send the correct
>> If there are errors, Its possible to only show the test data that
>> failed rather than the complete test run.
>> Also put it in a public repository with you as sole commiter.
> Already there, see http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/
>> So If we have any suggestions/improvements, can mail you with the
>> changes (We will not flood ur mail box ;) )
> Please do.
I will look into it now
More information about the wine-devel