AppDB: Rating / Patching

[Austin English]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Nathaniel Gray <n8gray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, the story changes if the patch is conforming and has been accepted
>>> by AJ and is pending the next development release.
>>>
>> Then the next development release can get the gold, but previous ones still shouldn't. AppDB test ratings are tied to specific releases, and intended to tell normal users how different versions of Wine will work with their app. Patching Wine is not something normal users can or want to do, and allowing ratings based on patched versions of Wine is misleading, even if the patch does eventually make it in to a later release.
>
> It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't
> descriptive enough.  It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given
> program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder
> how well it will work.  It's also reasonable to wonder how it will
> work with a vanilla version.  Both types of reports are useful to have
> in the appdb.  Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to
> reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated.
>
> Cheers,
> -n8
>
> --
> Nathan Gray
> http://www.n8gray.org/
>
>
>

No. Because that allows for all sorts of dirty hacks, and is confusing
to users. Ratings should specify default wine. They can list patches,
etc., in the comments, with a note of how well it works.

-- 
-Austin