Wed Feb 11 21:28:26 CST 2009
should be against the newest release, otherwise somebody has to check =
out whether a bug is still present there (a regular question in =
However AppDB has two uses:
- and users who expect to find there valuable information about how to =
make applications run.
For instance, I'd like to submit a testdata result about Syberia 2 with =
rating Platinum (or gold) with wine-1.1.6 in order to highlight the fact =
that this is the only release that works flawlessly:
After 1.1.6, sound bug #16513 was introduced. Prior to 1.1.6, the app =
was affected by other bugs. [Even the 1.0.0 platinum rating is arguably =
incorrect, as the tester did not play to the end and missed the =
opportunity to detect the hanging candle machine mid-game.]
So my idea is that users whould be able to come to AppDB, immediately =
see that 1.1.6 has platinum color and has a comment saying that it is =
the best release for playing this particular application. They are still =
free to use the most current release, after consulting the app's bug =
I find this cleaner and more useful than submitting 1..N bronze entries =
for 1.1.11-1.1.16 with an additional note there recommending use of =
Other people could package bottles with this particular release, given =
the 1.1.6-only platinum rating.
Something similar holds for some other applications: users may wish to =
visibly document in AppDB the best existing wine release for using a =
particular application, rather than commenting on the -- possibly =
degraded -- current one.
The idea is that we can have good AppDB ratings (non-exagerated), while =
still having new bugs in bugzilla.
More information about the wine-devel