new d3d9/device.ok test always fails here, but not a regression?

[Dan Kegel]

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard at winehq.org> wrote:
> Obviously it's important, and we have an importance field in bugzilla
> for that. But the regression keyword has a specific meaning: there has
> to be a piece of code that worked and then got broken. Bugs in newly
> added code cannot be regressions.
>
> Similarly, if we add a dll and some app starts using it and breaks,
> technically that's not a regression even though the behavior got worse,
> because it has always been broken, it just wasn't exercised before.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

If an app stops working because some missing feature is
added to an existing DLL, it should not be tagged as a regression
even though it is from the app's point of view, right?
(Thinking of the installers for Photoshop CS3 and Visual Studio 2005.)
I wonder if we need a separate keyword for that, like 'appregression'.
- Dan