* On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, André Hentschel wrote: > As the VMs in Testbot are now retired we might want to delete the "old" > win9x testdata from test.winehq.org(we need a name for this, > testviewer?) manually?
Wait, please. Was there some voting been held to make such sentence official? I think no. * On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > The value of running tests on Win9x these days is certainly > questionable. We don't try to emulate the Win9x behavior anyway, except > in a very few cases (which most likely don't have tests...) So would someone try doing this (testing these rare cases, as Jerome Leclanche wrote), one wouldn't have a chance then (except for running Winetest on Win9x manually) ? I disagree. * On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Alexandre Julliard 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. I believe most of devs writing test cases don't care about Win9x branch already. Here reds count about 5x more than reds from WinNT branch. * On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > > Right now all the test results that differ for win9x versions are marked > as broken(), Dmitry, you are mistaken. I put the ERROR_NOT_LOGGED_ON case for Win98 in 2005[*], and it's still not broken(). How were you checking that? [*] http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commitdiff;h=5cd099290c5333206e25fd3a27e1344b70105881 In the worst case I would agree with alternative ways around: 1, to hide Win9x data by moving it to some other page (/data_all); 2, to separate tests into winetest-HASH.exe and winetest9x-HASH.EXE. This would require separate page for the (9x or total) data also. Thanks all for reading this long, S.
