On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin English wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, my work XP box times out on quite a few tests, but has system
>> restore disabled.
>>
>> -Austin
>>
> Hi Austin,
>
> Could you check something for me on your XP box?
>
> According to
> http://
Austin English wrote:
>
> FWIW, my work XP box times out on quite a few tests, but has system
> restore disabled.
>
> -Austin
>
Hi Austin,
Could you check something for me on your XP box?
According to
http://test.winehq.org/data/5e1ac66b258415a33d96bb983c7e2ec3c7eea968/xp_aenglish-xp-sp3/kern
Austin English wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> James Hawkins wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:08 PM, James Mckenzie
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One file per run is all that should be created, IMHO.
>>> No, zero log files should be creat
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:08 PM, James Mckenzie
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> One file per run is all that should be created, IMHO.
>>
>> No, zero log files should be created. This discussion is ab
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> James Hawkins wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:08 PM, James Mckenzie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> James Hawkins wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:08 PM, James Mckenzie
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One file per run is all that should be created, IMHO.
>>> No, zero log files should be create
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:08 PM, James Mckenzie
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> One file per run is all that should be created, IMHO.
>>
>> No, zero log files should be created. This discussio
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:08 PM, James Mckenzie
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One file per run is all that should be created, IMHO.
>
> No, zero log files should be created. This discussion is about
> reducing the time it takes to run the tests, and any logging hinders
> t
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:08 PM, James Mckenzie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James:
>>>
>>> +1 to one log file. I hate having to look through piles of log files to
>>> find errors. Yes, I know that I could grep them, but that is an added step
>>> that should not be needed.
>>>
>>
>>Why would you
James:
>From: James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sep 1, 2008 10:49 AM
>To: James Mckenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "wine-devel@winehq.org"
>
>Subject: Re: Recent msi/package tests failures
>
>On Mon, Sep 1,
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM, James Mckenzie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul/James:
> Paul Vriens wrote:
>>James Hawkins wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I just sent a few patches that fix the problem with the timeout on my
>
Paul/James:
Paul Vriens wrote:
>James Hawkins wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I just sent a few patches that fix the problem with the timeout on my
>>> machines.
>>>
>>> Do you think it's still worthwhile to disable logging by using
Same thing here with a 2k box running on VirtualBox.
2008/8/31 Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I just sent a few patches that fix the problem with the timeout on my
> >> machine
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just sent a few patches that fix the problem with the timeout on my
>> machines.
>>
>> Do you think it's still worthwhile to disable logging by using
>> MsiEnableLogA? When I now look in my
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> James Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> James Hawkins wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:26 +0200, Paul Vriens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking in
> I did all kinds of things to try and speed the tests up, to no avail.
>
> The following patch however seems to help:
>
> diff --git a/dlls/msi/tests/install.c b/dlls/msi/tests/install.c
> index 40fabf8..5c7c10c 100644
> --- a/dlls/msi/tests/install.c
> +++ b/dlls/msi/tests/install.c
> @@ -5415,
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> James Hawkins wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:26 +0200, Paul Vriens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking in
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Paul Millar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 August 2008 21:15:48 James Hawkins wrote:
>> That's not why the tests are failing. The install tests are timing
>> out, and if the winetest executable kills the child process that it
>> believes is 'hung', th
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 21:15:48 James Hawkins wrote:
> That's not why the tests are failing. The install tests are timing
> out, and if the winetest executable kills the child process that it
> believes is 'hung', then you're killing the installer process midway
> through an install and thus
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:26 +0200, Paul Vriens wrote:
Hi,
I was looking into the recent test
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:26 +0200, Paul Vriens wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was looking into the recent test failures for the msi/package tests on my
>>> WinXP box.
>>>
>>> The reason for most of them w
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:26 +0200, Paul Vriens wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was looking into the recent test failures for the msi/package tests on my
>> WinXP box.
>>
>> The reason for most of them was a stray MSITEST package tha
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:26 +0200, Paul Vriens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking into the recent test failures for the msi/package tests on my
> WinXP box.
>
> The reason for most of them was a stray MSITEST package that couldn't be
> removed
> via the 'Add/Remove Programs' (had to remove stuff f
Hi,
I was looking into the recent test failures for the msi/package tests on my
WinXP box.
The reason for most of them was a stray MSITEST package that couldn't be
removed
via the 'Add/Remove Programs' (had to remove stuff from the registry).
Any one else seeing this? (Adam Petaccia's XP box
25 matches
Mail list logo
