Dan Kegel wrote:
> Yep. And at some point we should indeed make Windows XP
> the default personality in Wine. Seems like a 1.0 kind of thing.
But that should be done way before 1.0 to overcome any regressions.
--
Cheers,
Paul.
On Jan 15, 2008 6:03 PM, Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This Examples of "broken" Windows installations are VMware
> > installations with Direct3D support enabled. VMWare has a D3D driver
> > that works similarly to Wine, but has a few bugs that our tests
> > stumble uppon.
>
>
>
>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> Am Montag, 14. Januar 2008 14:41:35 schrieb Reece Dunn:
> > But if you fix a test failure in Wine that is failing on Windows, then
> > you are introducing a bug in Wine.
> Not necessarily. Some tests are too strict in what they expect, and sometimes
>
Am Montag, 14. Januar 2008 14:41:35 schrieb Reece Dunn:
> But if you fix a test failure in Wine that is failing on Windows, then
> you are introducing a bug in Wine.
Not necessarily. Some tests are too strict in what they expect, and sometimes
the Windows behavior is "wrong", in the way that some
On 14/01/2008, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2008 8:30 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On my machine, we've been hovering between
> > > five and ten test suite failures for some time
> > > (see http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9916 )
> > > ...
> > > H
On Jan 14, 2008 11:13 AM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 5:41 AM, Reece Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > But I was only referring to the tests that fail on Wine; there,
> > > we have control over both the test and the code, so if
> > > we can't get those tests passing,
On Jan 14, 2008 5:41 AM, Reece Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I was only referring to the tests that fail on Wine; there,
> > we have control over both the test and the code, so if
> > we can't get those tests passing, we're pretty weak :-)
>
> But if you fix a test failure in Wine that is
[snipsnipsnip]
> >>> On my machine, we've been hovering between
> >>> five and ten test suite failures for some time
> >>> (see http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9916 )
> >>> ...
> >>> How 'bout folks spend some time tracking
> >>> the current six odd failures down and cleaning them up?
> >>
>
Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2008 8:30 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On my machine, we've been hovering between
>>> five and ten test suite failures for some time
>>> (see http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9916 )
>>> ...
>>> How 'bout folks spend some time tracking
>>> t
On Jan 13, 2008 8:30 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On my machine, we've been hovering between
> > five and ten test suite failures for some time
> > (see http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9916 )
> > ...
> > How 'bout folks spend some time tracking
> > the current six odd
On Jan 13, 2008 6:53 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On my machine, we've been hovering between
> five and ten test suite failures for some time
> (see http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9916 )
>
> IMHO one of the hallmarks of 1.0 should be reliably
> getting zero test suite failures
On my machine, we've been hovering between
five and ten test suite failures for some time
(see http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9916 )
IMHO one of the hallmarks of 1.0 should be reliably
getting zero test suite failures.
That would make regressions stand out like sore thumbs
instead of requi
12 matches
Mail list logo
