On Sunday 16 March 2008 00:15:06 Dan Kegel wrote:
> Per http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan,
> in early May, Wine's trunk will go into code freeze,
> and only small, obvious bugfixes will be accepted.
Could we please come up with a good plan on how to handle Summer of Code
contributions _befor
On Mar 16, 2008, at 7:13 AM, James McKenzie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lei Zhang wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
6254 had a proposed fix from Tony Rollo, and was worked on both Lai
Zhang and myself.
Hi,
> > That patch is old and crusty and doesn't apply anymore. James should
> > have an updated version.
One thing I can add from looking at that patch is that the comments
about the deficiency of MS richedit tables handling are true only for
versions <=2.0. Later versions, including msftedit,
Lei Zhang wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 6254 had a proposed fix from Tony Rollo, and was worked on both Lai
>> > Zhang and myself. Can I send the proposed patch to the dev list for
>> > review? The patc
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 6254 had a proposed fix from Tony Rollo, and was worked on both Lai
> > Zhang and myself. Can I send the proposed patch to the dev list for
> > review? The patch fixes the problem stated.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 6254 had a proposed fix from Tony Rollo, and was worked on both Lai
> Zhang and myself. Can I send the proposed patch to the dev list for
> review? The patch fixes the problem stated.
Lei, feel like resubmitting
http://winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-June/0
up loose ends.
>
> http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&product=Wine&target_milestone=1.0.0&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
> lists 99 bugs targeted for the 1.0.0 release.
> When the code freeze starts, we wil
ormat=advanced&product=Wine&target_milestone=1.0.0&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
lists 99 bugs targeted for the 1.0.0 release.
When the code freeze starts, we will defer most of the
remaining unfixed 1.0 bugs to the 1.1 r
group/comp.os.linux/msg/7f92abdf494ab8b3 )
>
> Over the last six or so months, the wine developers have
> identified 180 or so bugs as possibly being worth fixing
> before the 1.0 release.
>
> 63 of the Wine 1.0 bugs have already been fixed:
> http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?target_m
have
identified 180 or so bugs as possibly being worth fixing
before the 1.0 release.
63 of the Wine 1.0 bugs have already been fixed:
http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?target_milestone=1.0.0&resolution=FIXED
101 are left to fix:
http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?target_milestone=1.0.0&a
On Nov 25, 2007 10:10 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far, 82 bugs have been nominated to be fixed for 1.0.
Forgot to mention:
http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria
has a handy link to a bugzilla query that shows the list of 1.0 bugs.
[putting on tastemaster hat]
So far, 82 bugs have been nominated to be fixed for 1.0.
I checked a bunch of them, and so far most look
reasonable. Some even look easy or have patches, e.g.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5402
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5884
http://bugs.winehq.or
On Saturday 06 October 2007 17:12:51 Dan Kegel wrote:
> On 10/6/07, Jesse Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria
> >
> > Can find get a timeline for the feature freeze and the 1.0 release?
>
> As the wiki page says, we hope to have a "final" list of bugs
>
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 20:35:26 Denali Coldstar wrote:
> Dan Kegel kegel.com> writes:
> >*
>
> *>* At Wineconf 2007, I was appointed to be the guy who decides
> *>* (with Alexandre's approval) what bugs are 1.0 bugs and what aren't.
> *>* So I'
Dan Kegel kegel.com> writes:
>*
*>* At Wineconf 2007, I was appointed to be the guy who decides
*>* (with Alexandre's approval) what bugs are 1.0 bugs and what aren't.
*>* So I've started adjusting the "Target Release" fields on a few
*>* bugs in Bugzil
On 10/12/07, Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the only applications which should block Wine releases should be
> ones which are freely downloadable and for which automated tests exist
> (with cxtest, yawt or something). The rational is that everyone should
> be able to run the t
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Dan Kegel wrote:
[...]
> Do we want to add Microsoft Word 2003 to the "must have" apps list for 1.0?
> It might delay the release.
I think the only applications which should block Wine releases should be
ones which are freely downloadable and for which automated tests exist
(
Am Samstag, 6. Oktober 2007 13:41:43 schrieb Dan Kegel:
> Over the next month or so, I'd like Wine developers to nominate important
> bugs for 1.0 by setting their "target release" field to 1.0. Later on
> we'll clean up and freeze the list somehow.
I think all the remaining DirectDraw rewrite reg
On 10/8/07, Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> Sorry for my cheek, but don't a 1.0-Version mean that every Windows app
> works on Wine?
>
There will never be a point where all Windows apps work in Wine. As
it stands, we have a bigger compatibility goal than current versions
of
007, 22:36:41 Uhr
Betreff: Re: 1.0 Bugs - Microsoft Office 2003
On 10/7/07, EA Durbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was able to get around bug 9023 with a patch applied to the appdb
I see you attached the patch to bug 9023, thanks.
> and I
> did some further testing in Office 2003
I would like to propose this one:
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5351
2007/10/7, Karl Relton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I would like consideration given to
>
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3739
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4362
>
> I would imagine Adobe PhotoDeluxe mig
On 10/7/07, EA Durbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was able to get around bug 9023 with a patch applied to the appdb
I see you attached the patch to bug 9023, thanks.
> and I
> did some further testing in Office 2003 today. Initially I'm prompted to
> activate my copy of microsoft office 2003,
I was able to get around bug 9023 with a patch applied to the appdb and I did
some further testing in Office 2003 today. Initially I'm prompted to activate
my copy of microsoft office 2003, and both means of activating the application
are broken in wine due to bugs 9943 and 9944. Then I tried t
I would like consideration given to
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3739
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4362
I would imagine Adobe PhotoDeluxe might be quite common among home users
(who may get a copy with their digital camera, and not fork out for full
Photoshop).
The other bug
Dan Kegel kegel.com> writes:
>
> Louis wrote:
> > Ok, here one on my wish-list:
> > All apps that currently fail on wine due to shdocvw/mshtml disfunctionality.
>
> Hmm. I looked at the 48 bugs in
> http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-shdocvw
> briefly, and marked a
Louis wrote:
> Ok, here one on my wish-list:
> All apps that currently fail on wine due to shdocvw/mshtml disfunctionality.
Hmm. I looked at the 48 bugs in
http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-shdocvw
briefly, and marked a few of them that looked important as 1.0. See
Ok, here one on my wish-list:
All apps that currently fail on wine due to shdocvw/mshtml disfunctionality.
Almost all of these apps start fine using ies4linux. I did quite a lot of
testing of demo's, and many of them fail because of this (in most cases you
just end up with a white screen). Actua
ineconf 2007, I was appointed to be the guy who decides
>> (with Alexandre's approval) what bugs are 1.0 bugs and what aren't.
>> So I've started adjusting the "Target Release" fields on a few
>> bugs in Bugzilla.
>> Over the next month or so, I&#x
On 10/6/07, Jesse Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria
>
> Can find get a timeline for the feature freeze and the 1.0 release?
As the wiki page says, we hope to have a "final" list of bugs
by the end of the year. There have been some murmurings about
try
On 10/6/07, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Wineconf 2007, I was appointed to be the guy who decides
> (with Alexandre's approval) what bugs are 1.0 bugs and what aren't.
> So I've started adjusting the "Target Release" fields on a few
> bugs in
On Saturday 06 October 2007 13:41:43 Dan Kegel wrote:
> At Wineconf 2007, I was appointed to be the guy who decides
> (with Alexandre's approval) what bugs are 1.0 bugs and what aren't.
> So I've started adjusting the "Target Release" fields on a few
> bugs in
Louis Lenders wrote:
> Maybe it's an idea to say "if a bug includes at least 5 duplicates
>(so 5 apps suffering from the same bug) it can be automatically
> boosted to the 1.0 target release". I was especially thinking of bug #7380.
> ( http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7380 )
That's not a ba
Dan Kegel kegel.com> writes:
>
> At Wineconf 2007, I was appointed to be the guy who decides
> (with Alexandre's approval) what bugs are 1.0 bugs and what aren't.
> So I've started adjusting the "Target Release" fields on a few
> bugs in Bugzilla.
On 10/6/07, EA Durbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria
>
> I still have a whole slew of older applications(about 30-40 of them) that
> won't work because of just 3 bugs.
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3743
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?i
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 04:41:43 -0700> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> wine-devel@winehq.org> Subject: Wine 1.0 bugs, release criteria> > At
> Wineconf 2007, I was appointed to be the guy who decides> (with Alexandre's
> approval) what bugs are 1.0 bug
At Wineconf 2007, I was appointed to be the guy who decides
(with Alexandre's approval) what bugs are 1.0 bugs and what aren't.
So I've started adjusting the "Target Release" fields on a few
bugs in Bugzilla.
Over the next month or so, I'd like Wine developers to nomi
36 matches
Mail list logo
