Death to win9x?
saulius2 at ar.fi.lt
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 test.winehq.org(we 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