Sufficient 1.2 release criterion: passing all tests on all platforms?
austinenglish at gmail.com
Sun Mar 8 17:31:15 CDT 2009
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com> wrote:
>> But now that you ask, we do have a lot of platforms to consider. We
>> simply can't provide the same level of support for them all.
>> The gcc project defines three tiers of support. If we did that, it
>> might look like this:
>> We would define tiers for Windows conformance test validation, CPUs,
>> and host operating systems, and maybe graphics cards.
>> 1st tier: we run tests regularly, and all tests must pass for release.
>> 2nd tier: we might run tests occasionally or regularly, but we will
>> tolerate some failures.
>> 3rd tier: we won't test ourselves, and will tolerate failures, but
>> will accept bugfixes from advocates.
>> Here's one possible set of definitions:
>> For Windows conformance test validation:
>> 1st tier: Win XP 32 bit, Win 2003 32 bit, Win Vista 32 and 64 bit,
>> Win 2008 32 bit
>> 2nd tier: Win XP 16 bit, Win 95, Win 98, Win ME, Win 7 32 and 64 bit
>> 3rd tier: Win 3.1, DOS
> Not sure exactly what you mean by Win XP 16-bit? The Win16 test suite on XP?
>> For CPUs:
>> 1st tier: whatever our developers use, but mostly < 2 year old Intel
>> and AMD chips, running apps in all three modes, 16, 32, and 64 bit (as
>> supported by hw)
>> 2nd tier: none
>> 3rd tier: power pc, sparc, other less-common pentium-compatible chips
> No argument there. Perhaps move 64-bit to 2nd tier, and move it up to
> 1st once we've got better support for it.
>> For host OS:
>> 1st tier: Linux
>> 2nd tier: Mac OS X
>> 3rd tier: Solaris, FreeBSD
> Having tested these often, I'd say OS X is more broken than FreeBSD.
> I'd swap those two around to be honest. Solaris/OpenBSD/NetBSD are
> tier 3 though.
Also might add in WINEDEBUG paramaters, e.g., make +heap a 1st/2nd tier.
More information about the wine-devel