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 define tiers for Windows conformance test validation, CPUs, > and host operating systems, and maybe graphics cards. > 1st tier: we run tests regularly, and all tests must pass for release. > 2nd tier: we might run tests occasionally or regularly, but we will > tolerate some failures. > 3rd tier: we won't test ourselves, and will tolerate failures, but > will accept bugfixes from advocates.
+1 > 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 > 2nd tier: Win XP 16 bit, Win 95, Win 98, Win ME, Win 7 32 and 64 bit > 3rd tier: Win 3.1, DOS Not sure exactly what you mean by Win XP 16-bit? The Win16 test suite on XP? > For CPUs: > 1st tier: whatever our developers use, but mostly < 2 year old Intel > and AMD chips, running apps in all three modes, 16, 32, and 64 bit (as > supported by hw) > 2nd tier: none > 3rd tier: power pc, sparc, other less-common pentium-compatible chips No argument there. Perhaps move 64-bit to 2nd tier, and move it up to 1st once we've got better support for it. > For host OS: > 1st tier: Linux > 2nd tier: Mac OS X > 3rd tier: Solaris, FreeBSD Having tested these often, I'd say OS X is more broken than FreeBSD. I'd swap those two around to be honest. Solaris/OpenBSD/NetBSD are tier 3 though. -- -Austin
