Austin English <austinengl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:00 PM, K.King <k.king...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> <<< >> That's not useful. The whole point is that we don't want to spend the >> effort required to keep the tests error-free on platforms that we don't >> care about. That makes it easier to write tests for platforms that >> actually matter, which is a more productive use of everybody's time. >>>>> >> You may not care, but I know a number of people who do. >> For some running the older software is more important, of interest, or use. > >A majority of that effort is rewriting tests to make win9x happy, not >rewriting behavior to fix win9x applications. > >Few people (if any) want to intentionally break win9x applications, >but spending a large amount of developer effort to maintain the tests >there isn't really the best investment, when it could instead be spent >fixing real bugs. > This I do agree with. I'm working on tests for richedit and the expected reaction of the Win9x version is much different than the reaction of the WindowsXP version.
I could drop the Win9x tests and concentrate on Windows 2000 and higher. Would this be a good course of action? James McKenzie