Death to win9x?

Saulius Krasuckas saulius2 at
Fri Dec 3 13:46:34 CST 2010

* On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, André Hentschel wrote:

> As the VMs in Testbot are now retired we might want to delete the "old" 
> win9x testdata from need a name for this, 
> testviewer?) manually?

Wait, please.  Was there some voting been held to make such sentence 
official?  I think no.

* On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> The value of running tests on Win9x these days is certainly 
> questionable. We don't try to emulate the Win9x behavior anyway, except 
> in a very few cases (which most likely don't have tests...) 

So would someone try doing this (testing these rare cases, as Jerome 
Leclanche wrote), one wouldn't have a chance then (except for running 
Winetest on Win9x manually) ?  I disagree.

* On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> That's not useful. The whole point is that we don't want to spend the 
> effort required to keep the tests error-free on platforms that we don't 
> care about. That makes it easier to write tests for platforms that 
> actually matter, which is a more productive use of everybody's time.

I believe most of devs writing test cases don't care about Win9x branch 
already.  Here reds count about 5x more than reds from WinNT branch.

* On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Right now all the test results that differ for win9x versions are marked 
> as broken(), 

Dmitry, you are mistaken.  I put the ERROR_NOT_LOGGED_ON case for Win98 in 
2005[*], and it's still not broken().  How were you checking that?


In the worst case I would agree with alternative ways around:

1, to hide Win9x data by moving it to some other page (/data_all);

2, to separate tests into winetest-HASH.exe and winetest9x-HASH.EXE.  
This would require separate page for the (9x or total) data also.

Thanks all for reading this long,

More information about the wine-devel mailing list