On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
For Windows conformance test validation:
1st tier: Win XP 32 bit, Win 2003 32 bit, Win Vista 32 and 64 bit,
Win 2008 32 bit
Having tests pass on all these platforms is of course a worthwhile goal,
but it can't be
Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com writes:
Here's one possible set of definitions:
For Windows conformance test validation:
1st tier: Win XP 32 bit, Win 2003 32 bit, Win Vista 32 and 64 bit,
Win 2008 32 bit
Having tests pass on all these platforms is of course a worthwhile goal,
but it can't be made
Even without any new features, it seems to me that
passing all tests on all platforms might all on its own
merit a new stable release.
That said, by the time we have that, we might well have
64 bit support working, too...
- Dan
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
Even without any new features, it seems to me that
passing all tests on all platforms might all on its own
merit a new stable release.
Grouping platforms by age:
2000 and earlier have 75 rows with red or mixed,
XP/2003/Vista/2008
Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote on March 8th:
It almost feels within our grasp for midyear... how 'bout it?
I would like to add that these tests should also pass on the MacOSX platform as
well.
+1 to the idea, Dan.
James McKenzie
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:08 PM, James Mckenzie
jjmckenzi...@earthlink.net wrote:
It almost feels within our grasp for midyear... how 'bout it?
I would like to add that these tests should also pass on the MacOSX platform
as well.
As in, they already do, or as in, that should be a release
Dan Kegel wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Paul Vriens paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com wrote:
For that sole reason I started with installing a basic W2K box without
servicepacks and patches. The last remaining few failures on my boxes are
not the easiest ones but there are loads of (easier to
Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com writes:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
Even without any new features, it seems to me that
passing all tests on all platforms might all on its own
merit a new stable release.
Grouping platforms by age:
2000 and earlier have 75 rows
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
I don't think tests passing on Windows is a reason for a release, it has
very little impact on the Wine code. In the vast majority of cases these
are tests that already succeed on Wine and on some Windows versions, so
Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com writes:
I've been itching to do another release for a while, since
what we have now is a lot better than 1.0.
Your position has been that what's blocking release
is the lack of a new feature (you listed several, any of which
you felt would suffice).
How do you feel
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com writes:
I've been itching to do another release for a while, since
what we have now is a lot better than 1.0.
Your position has been that what's blocking release
is the lack of a new feature (you listed several, any of which
you felt would
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
Even without any new features, it seems to me that
passing all tests on all platforms might all on its own
merit a new stable release.
By 'all platforms', do you mean all Windows versions, or Linux/OS X/BSD/Solaris?
--
-Austin
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
64-bit support isn't too far away, so if we put some more effort into it
that should be achievable in the near future
It seems we could reasonably start the release process 3 months
from now.
That would be
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Scott Ritchie sc...@open-vote.org wrote:
I do have one question though: do we mean regressions relative to any
beta Wine, or just regressions relative to 1.0.1? I prefer the less
strict approach if it means more frequent releases
I think the users will expect
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote:
Even without any new features, it seems to me that
passing all tests on all platforms might all on its own
merit a new stable release.
By 'all platforms', do you mean all Windows versions, or Linux/OS
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
But now that you ask, we do have a lot of platforms to consider. We
simply can't provide the same level of support for them all.
The gcc project defines three tiers of support. If we did that, it
might look like this:
We would
to list as well
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Date: 2009/3/8
Subject: Re: Sufficient 1.2 release criterion: passing all tests on
all platforms?
To: Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com
2009/3/8 Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com:
For graphics cards:
1st tier
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
But now that you ask, we do have a lot of platforms to consider. We
simply can't provide the same level of support for them all.
The gcc project
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote:
For Windows conformance test validation:
1st tier: Win XP 32 bit, Win 2003 32 bit, Win Vista 32 and 64 bit,
Win 2008 32 bit
2nd tier: Win XP 16 bit, Win 95, Win 98, Win ME, Win 7 32 and 64 bit
3rd tier: Win 3.1,
2009/3/9 Scott Ritchie sc...@open-vote.org:
Starting the release process three months from now would be a really
good thing. It would put us just in time for the next wave of distro
releases (Ubuntu 9.10 among them), which would get 1.2 to millions of
new desktops. As it stands, only 135,150
Ben Klein wrote:
2009/3/9 Scott Ritchie sc...@open-vote.org:
Starting the release process three months from now would be a really
good thing. It would put us just in time for the next wave of distro
releases (Ubuntu 9.10 among them), which would get 1.2 to millions of
new desktops. As it
21 matches
Mail list logo
