Death to win9x?

Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle at Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle at
Wed Dec 22 10:52:28 CST 2010


André Hentschel wrote:
>actually we just always need to do something like skip() or broken()
> and that's nothing else as ignoring the test results of 9x
Well, I could sympathize with the idea of removing all broken(/*win9x*/)
and leave only skip() such that the tests don't crash prematurely.

Does refuse win9x test data since 2010-12-17?
This is not a good idea at all.
We had a couple of real machines that were submitting results, e.g. Saulius's machines.
Even when test failures on win9x are not a criteria for rejecting patches, that
must not mean that we become blind on what happens on the win9x side.

What seems to happen now is overshooting.
 + Don't let testbot run patches against win9x anymore -- ok
    which is quite different from ignoring win9x test failures.
 + Still have them alive for developers     -- great
 - Drop win9x data from -- WTF?

People are still using many apps written in the win9x era and
not all of those have platinum rating. We still need to know how
those old systems behaved differently.

 Jörg Höhle

More information about the wine-devel mailing list