On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Alexey Loukianov <[email protected]> wrote: >> Really? IMHO they should still be silver. Patches are very hard for the >> average user to deploy without a third party front end like POL, and appdb >> is not about POL. - Dan > > I thinks that using silver won't be correct here either.
Yes, sorry, after I posted that, I realized that patches should force it down to bronze or lower. http://appdb.winehq.org//help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings doesn't even allow patches at all at the moment. > "Some patches" could > be treated too widely - and I think that we really don't want someone to use > patch that, say, changes most of the wineserver to be inproc, and then treat > it as "some patches" and rate an app as "Golden" with it. And an argument that > patching Wine isn't something that is easy for average user is also a valid > point. > > IMO if we want to handle "patched Wine" case in AppDB is some sane manner it > would be better just to add a separate flag for a testreport to indicate was > the Wine used for testing "vanilla" or not - it would make more sense for > users and would allow to display test results acquired with a patched Wine in > a visually distinguishable way from reports acquired with vanilla Wine. Thus, > non-experienced users would be mostly checking results and ratings poster for > non-patched Wine, while geeks would be doing their geekish business that they > had always been doing. A "runs well with patched wine" checkbox might be useful, but would be very confusing. Maybe if it forced the rating to be garbage that would be ok.
