Death to win9x?

[Jacek Caban]

On 12/22/10 5:52 PM, Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle at t-systems.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2010-December/096908.html

> 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 
useful anyways.

Jacek