AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
dimesio at earthlink.net
Mon Dec 15 22:09:48 CST 2008
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:28:18 -0600
"Austin English" <austinenglish at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/12/15 M.Kiesel <wine-devel at continuity.cjb.net>:
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote:
> >> If I had a nickel for every times I've seen platinum and gold ratings for
> >> apps that had dozens of native dlls or complicated scripts to work around
> >> wine bugs, I'd be a much richer man.
> > What about clarifying the wording on
> > http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings
> > ?
I've been thinking about this myself.
My suggestion for "Platinum":
Application runs as well as on Windows "out of the box" (no changes required in winecfg) and has no open, confirmed bugs with a severity higher than enhancement.
My suggestion for "Gold":
Application runs as well as on Windows with some tweaks. Any open, confirmed bugs with a severity higher than "trivial" can be worked around with dll overrides, other settings, or third party software.
1. If an app doesn't run flawlessly on Windows (and how many do?), we shouldn't expect it to run flawlessly in Wine.
2. With complex apps like Word or Photoshop, testers often test only the basic functions, and give a gold or platinum rating based solely on that. Word 2003 currently has 19 bugs linked to it, of which 11 are confirmed, but someone who tested only basic word processing functions could legitimately give it a platinum rating under the current guidelines. We can't force people to test everything, but we can at least limit the top ratings based on known bugs.
Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio at earthlink.net>
More information about the wine-devel