On 12/22/10 5:52 PM, joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com wrote:
Hi,
André Hentschel wrote:
actually we just always need to do something like skip() or broken()
and that's nothing else as ignoring the test results of 9x
Well, I could sympathize with the idea of removing all broken(/*win9x*/)
and leave only skip() such that the tests don't crash prematurely.
Does test.winehq.org refuse win9x test data since 2010-12-17?
Yes, see my patch:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2010-December/096908.html
This is not a good idea at all.
We had a couple of real machines that were submitting results, e.g. Saulius's
machines.
Even when test failures on win9x are not a criteria for rejecting patches, that
must not mean that we become blind on what happens on the win9x side.
It was said already a few times: dropping win9x tests has nothing to do
with dropping win9x support. These test results weren't helpful nor
useful anyways.
Jacek
