Death to win9x?
jacek at codeweavers.com
Wed Dec 22 11:18:25 CST 2010
On 12/22/10 5:52 PM, Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle at t-systems.com wrote:
> 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 test.winehq.org refuse win9x test data since 2010-12-17?
Yes, see my patch:
> 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.
It was said already a few times: dropping win9x tests has nothing to do
with dropping win9x support. These test results weren't helpful nor
More information about the wine-devel