On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not that big a deal now, so long as the Hardy version (0.9.59
> > likely) stays around for a while ;)
>
> I think Chris was planning on remo
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not that big a deal now, so long as the Hardy version (0.9.59
> likely) stays around for a while ;)
I think Chris was planning on removing 0.9.59 from
the list way before Hardy is unsupported. Chris?
Chris Morgan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > It seems reasonable to me to include the version bundled with gutsy,
>> > > even if it's getting old, because gutsy is s
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the cutoff is '0.9.48' (for instance), then maybe we could add a
> 'pre-0.9.48' version.
Sounds too confusing to me, offhand. I'd rather stick with the current
situation of having a too-early cutoff.
> That way us
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Chris Morgan wrote:
[...]
> I'm all for adapting our behavior to better fit with the behavior of
> our users. I've spent hundreds of hours working on improving the
> appdb.
>
> If there was a good reason stated to accept results for obsoleted
> versions then I'd agree with you.
On Monday 07 April 2008 04:14:59 Austin English wrote:
> Has anyone considering talking to Canonical about getting a more
> recent wine version included in wine? While they understandably don't
> want to introduce too new of versions, they also need to take into
> account that we release every two
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > It seems reasonable to me to include the version bundled with gutsy
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It seems reasonable to me to include the version bundled with gutsy,
> > > even if it's getting old, because gutsy is so popular.
> >
> > If
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems reasonable to me to include the version bundled with gutsy,
> > even if it's getting old, because gutsy is so popular.
>
> If we wait another 18 days can we ask users of gutsy to upgrade to hardy? ;-)
Of cour
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The appdb code currently prunes the list to several of the most recent
> > versions so people don't submit entries against older or obsolete
> > v
Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The appdb code currently prunes the list to several of the most recent
>> versions so people don't submit entries against older or obsolete
>> versions.
>
> Of course. It's just a question of the righ
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The appdb code currently prunes the list to several of the most recent
> versions so people don't submit entries against older or obsolete
> versions.
Of course. It's just a question of the right cutoff.
It seems reasona
The appdb code currently prunes the list to several of the most recent
versions so people don't submit entries against older or obsolete
versions.
Is it really useful to have test results submitted such an old version
when we almost always ask users to upgrade to the latest version in
the #winehq
Can somebody change the appdb to allow submitting
results against 0.9.47? I think that's what Gutsy's
bundled version of wine is.
Somebody just submitted bogus results (with the wrong wine
version) because we lack that option.
14 matches
Mail list logo
