[appdb] Applications working flawlessly using patched wine should be rated Gold

[Dan Kegel]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Alexey Loukianov <mooroon2 at mail.ru> wrote:
>> Really?  IMHO they should still be silver.  Patches are very hard for the
>> average user to deploy without a third party front end like POL, and appdb
>> is not about POL. - Dan
>
> I thinks that using silver won't be correct here either.

Yes, sorry, after I posted that, I realized that patches should
force it down to bronze or lower.
http://appdb.winehq.org//help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings
doesn't even allow patches at all at the moment.

> "Some patches" could
> be treated too widely - and I think that we really don't want someone to use
> patch that, say, changes most of the wineserver to be inproc, and then treat
> it as "some patches" and rate an app as "Golden" with it. And an argument that
> patching Wine isn't something that is easy for average user is also a valid
> point.
>
> IMO if we want to handle "patched Wine" case in AppDB is some sane manner it
> would be better just to add a separate flag for a testreport to indicate was
> the Wine used for testing "vanilla" or not - it would make more sense for
> users and would allow to display test results acquired with a patched Wine in
> a  visually distinguishable way from reports acquired with vanilla Wine. Thus,
> non-experienced users would be mostly checking results and ratings poster for
> non-patched Wine, while geeks would be doing their geekish business that they
> had always been doing.

A "runs well with patched wine" checkbox might be useful, but would be
very confusing.
Maybe if it forced the rating to be garbage that would be ok.