Re: crypt32: implement CryptSIPLoad (try 5)
On 6/1/07, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Answering my own question, I see that the previous try introduced compiler warnings. Fixed. ChangeLog: implement CryptSIPLoad --Juan Hi Juan, This patch still uses the non-native behavior. Is there a consensus on this? I guess we are the only ones talking about this but I hope there are more opinions. I said before that I also don't know why native does it like that and I don't see any benefit (yet). If this patch does get accepted we should have a proper comment in the source (or are the comments in the tests enough?). Cheers, Paul.
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
I'm not sure there is a agreement what some things here mean. The following is my understanding of things, please correct me or state differing understanding: triage bugs: Make sure the bug is properly filed, has enough information and possibly uncover the cause (e.g. regression testing, finding where a NULL that causes a crash inside the application comes from). This also includes marking a bug resolved,fixed or closed or whatever, but the prior thing is more important because it makes it easier to fix. resolved,fixed: I only mark bugs where I'm confident that they are really fixed as this. So if I need to ask the reporter or some user if it now works for them I do this before resolving it. I think I never "closed" a bug. To detect e.g. resolved bugs with new comments (e.g. requesting reopen) I run a query for changed bugs (where I made a comment) since last date up to which I queried this (I noted that down) and e.g. yesterday. Closing bugs doesn't help here either as they could be closed in error, so someone would still want to request those to be reopened. So is someone really using the "closed" status (not in the sense that they set it but e.g. use it in queries)? On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:36:45PM -0500, Tom Spear wrote: > So I was closing bugs that were > invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme so that they wouldnt show in the > lists of resolved bugs, so its less I have to sort thru Does closed convey any more meaning than resolved as invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme? I mean who would mark a bug as resolved if that is not the conclusion and not reopen when that was done in error? So isn't closing perhaps something we _really_ want to avoid doing too prematurely? Perhaps something we only do every major release ( like 0.9 ). Otherwise it looses it's meaning as "this is something we never ever need to look at". Jan
Re: wine.inf: Create fake dll for iexplore.exe.
Louis. Lenders wrote: >> wine.inf: Create fake dll for >iexplore.exe. >Vitaliy Margolen >> wine-patches at kievinfo.com > >Thu May 24 08:50:10 CDT 2007 >> Some older programs check if IE is installed looking for c:\Program >> Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe > --- > > Hi, after comittment of this patch , I still don't see a fake c:\Program > Files\Internet explorer\iexplore.exe. > It appears this should be handled in differrent way. Somehow the directory > "Internet Explorer" should be created first, right? Or am I missing something? > Indeed. It seems we need to add this dir to ... heh how do we create it? Program Files is created from the shell32 during it's registration. But there seems to be no special dir for ie. Vitaliy.
Re: FPS tool for wine
On 5/21/07, Lei Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Right, for instance Tom Wickline ran 3dmark2000 and posted the results here: http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.33 There is also some scores here. http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.6 http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.35 My laptop has went down once more, it has always ran hot... extremely hot! and I think I kinda over done it once more. So the current plan is to RMA it again and then remove Linux and FreeBSD from it. then grow the Windows partition back to its original size and then put Windows back to day one and then Ebay it. Then build a current system, something like. Intel quad core processor --- dual quad core? 8GB of memory Geforece 8800 Ultra --- SLI? 1TB storage Gigabit network, etc. Then do some real benchmarking ;) Tom -- Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bug triage is a good idea so that stuff like this gets cleaned up. I'm not sure what everyone wants though. I guess you can figure that out :P See, my opinion of what triage is isnt the same as everyone else's.. Either way, I'll just leave resolved bugs resolved, until they stop me from finding a specific bug I'm looking for. Allow me to get a consensus. Random Closing of Resolved bugs that have no activity is not deemed helpful by everyone, even if it does help me, so would it be acceptable for me to close a few (less than 20) a day? That way I'm not spamming the list for any more than 30 mins, and I can still kind of make it easier to find the bugs that need a followup. -- Thanks Tom
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Remember that this is only my opinion. Other people handle things a > little different. It is probably true that the two recent bugs you > mentioned I would have closed, but it was only resolved. It's just how > it was handled. If you want to close bugs that are clearly done with > like that, it's fine by me. And I do close bug reports with other > status too, if it's one I really don't want to see again. > > If it's clear why you are closing bugs, it's all fine by me, whatever it is. Just to clarify my reasoning, because I just now thought about the _real_ reasoning lol, I often look thru lists of bugs that are resolved as fixed and (although i havent done it in a few years, i was going to start again), post a message to ask if the reporter can confirm if it is fixed. So I was closing bugs that were invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme so that they wouldnt show in the lists of resolved bugs, so its less I have to sort thru Bug triage is a good idea so that stuff like this gets cleaned up. I'm not sure what everyone wants though. I guess you can figure that out :P
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Remember that this is only my opinion. Other people handle things a little different. It is probably true that the two recent bugs you mentioned I would have closed, but it was only resolved. It's just how it was handled. If you want to close bugs that are clearly done with like that, it's fine by me. And I do close bug reports with other status too, if it's one I really don't want to see again. If it's clear why you are closing bugs, it's all fine by me, whatever it is. Just to clarify my reasoning, because I just now thought about the _real_ reasoning lol, I often look thru lists of bugs that are resolved as fixed and (although i havent done it in a few years, i was going to start again), post a message to ask if the reporter can confirm if it is fixed. So I was closing bugs that were invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme so that they wouldnt show in the lists of resolved bugs, so its less I have to sort thru -- Thanks Tom
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom, > > This is how I finalize bugs: > > * When a bugs has decisively been fixed, by a merged patch, with test > cases, or reported by user been fixed, then I close it. If it's > decisively "not a wine bug" close invalid. > * When a bug is rumored to be fixed, forgotten, or simply doesn't > appear on your end, then probably resolve fixed, abandoned, or > worksforme appropriately. > * When the bug has been only set to resolved, and continues to have > erroneous activity (i.e. commenting from random visitors that don't > understand the report), then close it to discourage use of the bug. > * If it's a bug that I don't know anything about, I shouldn't touch it. > > So the reason is, only "resolved" could maybe get revisited, and > "closed" I never want to see again. Other than that, it makes no sense > to me to close bugs unless there is some activity related to it (i.e. > it is proved that an uncertain fix has really been fixed and the issue > is done). Simply closing bugs worries me as does James. It really does > need to be case-by-case, so what we know you are doing is right. Thanks for the clarification. So if it is already resolved as anything other than fixed, just leave it alone unless it continues to get activity. I still don't like it, but as with anything, majority rules, so I will stop. Sorry for the spam everyone. -- Thanks Tom Remember that this is only my opinion. Other people handle things a little different. It is probably true that the two recent bugs you mentioned I would have closed, but it was only resolved. It's just how it was handled. If you want to close bugs that are clearly done with like that, it's fine by me. And I do close bug reports with other status too, if it's one I really don't want to see again. If it's clear why you are closing bugs, it's all fine by me, whatever it is. Jesse
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tom, This is how I finalize bugs: * When a bugs has decisively been fixed, by a merged patch, with test cases, or reported by user been fixed, then I close it. If it's decisively "not a wine bug" close invalid. * When a bug is rumored to be fixed, forgotten, or simply doesn't appear on your end, then probably resolve fixed, abandoned, or worksforme appropriately. * When the bug has been only set to resolved, and continues to have erroneous activity (i.e. commenting from random visitors that don't understand the report), then close it to discourage use of the bug. * If it's a bug that I don't know anything about, I shouldn't touch it. So the reason is, only "resolved" could maybe get revisited, and "closed" I never want to see again. Other than that, it makes no sense to me to close bugs unless there is some activity related to it (i.e. it is proved that an uncertain fix has really been fixed and the issue is done). Simply closing bugs worries me as does James. It really does need to be case-by-case, so what we know you are doing is right. Thanks for the clarification. So if it is already resolved as anything other than fixed, just leave it alone unless it continues to get activity. I still don't like it, but as with anything, majority rules, so I will stop. Sorry for the spam everyone. -- Thanks Tom
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's a problem to me, it may not be a problem to you, but that doesn't make it an invalid point. Marcus and Dan have both said to keep going, I'm sure others here (I'm not trying to speak for anyone, so someone else feel free to correct me if I am wrong) dont have any problem with my doing that either. And you miss the point as well, most new bugs that are marked resolved dont end up being closed on a case-by-case basis, which is why I am going back and doing that! Case in point: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7885 has been resolved for over a month, why was it not closed? http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8373 has been resolved for 2 weeks, same question applies. Tom, This is how I finalize bugs: * When a bugs has decisively been fixed, by a merged patch, with test cases, or reported by user been fixed, then I close it. If it's decisively "not a wine bug" close invalid. * When a bug is rumored to be fixed, forgotten, or simply doesn't appear on your end, then probably resolve fixed, abandoned, or worksforme appropriately. * When the bug has been only set to resolved, and continues to have erroneous activity (i.e. commenting from random visitors that don't understand the report), then close it to discourage use of the bug. * If it's a bug that I don't know anything about, I shouldn't touch it. So the reason is, only "resolved" could maybe get revisited, and "closed" I never want to see again. Other than that, it makes no sense to me to close bugs unless there is some activity related to it (i.e. it is proved that an uncertain fix has really been fixed and the issue is done). Simply closing bugs worries me as does James. It really does need to be case-by-case, so what we know you are doing is right. Jesse
Re: [d3drm/tests] d3drm is removed from Windows Vista
On 5/11/07, Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I suppose that implies that any application using d3drm won't work on > Vista? Yes, I think ms stated that clearly somewhen. No idea why they removed it since it just wraps to directdraw, and native d3drm works on wine(apart of a whole lot of directdraw executebuffer bugs) Almost all of the small games here : http://roborangers.home.comcast.net/Archive.htm use d3drm they may be useful for testing as there free. Tom -- Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Re: Whitespace changes in an indentation patch, is it acceptable?
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:23:59PM -0500, Tom Spear wrote: > I recall a few years back (2003?) There was a discussion about > removing extra whitespace at the end of lines, and someone came up > with a bash/sed script to look thru the entire wine tree, strip > trailing whitespace, and then somehow commit it (either with a really > large diff, or by it being run on the machine that the upstream tree > is on, I cant remember which). Once that was done, the tarballs > shrank by at least 1-2 megs in download size, and even more > uncompressed. I was curious, and got a really rough estimate of the number of files with trailing whitespace: $ find /var/work/wine/ -name '*.[chly]' | fgrep -v .tab | fgrep -v .yy \ | xargs grep -c '[[:space:]]\+$' | fgrep -v :0 | wc -l reported 1081 files. Checking for trailing whitespace after a backslash didn't turn up anything (which is good). I hardly think getting rid of trailing whitespace will shrink the tarballs by any significant amount, though.
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obviously someone that commits patches to the upstream bugzilla tree > agrees with me, because otherwise, there either wouldnt be a resolved > option, OR there would be a close option on the bugs that are in any > state of open, which is something I have suggested before, to cut down > on list traffic. > We are our own project, and we use bugzilla differently, just like every other project out there has their own practices. Ok. > I honestly dont see why it is such an inconvenience to you for me to > close the bugs that are marked resolved. You read thru every one of > my emails because you dont trust my decisions, understandable, but if > you are so worried about my marking a bug wrongly, then maybe you > should stop developing, and strictly focus on helping clean up > bugzilla, huh? That doesn't make any sense. You're saying I should take even more time away from development to check your changes. No, I'm saying that if someone higher up in the heirarchy were to do this as well, then I wouldnt have as many bugs to mess with, and therefore I wouldnt be able to make as many bad changes. I'm not the only one that reads each change, and even if I were, and someone else took over, it's still wasted time on their part. I know you arent the only one who reads each change. What I'm saying is that someone who has more free time (someone who's time it wouldnt be wasting, because they can't do anything atm) should join the fun. You continue to miss the point from the very beginning: you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. There's nothing wrong with old bugs being left as resolved and marking new bugs closed on a case by case basis. It's a problem to me, it may not be a problem to you, but that doesn't make it an invalid point. Marcus and Dan have both said to keep going, I'm sure others here (I'm not trying to speak for anyone, so someone else feel free to correct me if I am wrong) dont have any problem with my doing that either. And you miss the point as well, most new bugs that are marked resolved dont end up being closed on a case-by-case basis, which is why I am going back and doing that! Case in point: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7885 has been resolved for over a month, why was it not closed? http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8373 has been resolved for 2 weeks, same question applies. -- Thanks Tom
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/31/07, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do read through all of your bug emails, which is exactly the > problem, because I don't trust that you make the right decision on > every bug, and in some cases I've had to go back and correct it. That > is the issue. It has been a small number of cases.. That small number forces me to read the rest. > The statement still stands. Resolved isn't resolved enough for you, > but closed is...If a bug is marked resolved, I'm pretty sure it's > resolved. Obviously someone that commits patches to the upstream bugzilla tree agrees with me, because otherwise, there either wouldnt be a resolved option, OR there would be a close option on the bugs that are in any state of open, which is something I have suggested before, to cut down on list traffic. We are our own project, and we use bugzilla differently, just like every other project out there has their own practices. > No one has problems with people correcting bugs that are marked > incorrectly, but of the 30 or so bugs a day that you change, this case > is a small amount. If you *only* changed this class of bugs, then > that would be fine. I honestly dont see why it is such an inconvenience to you for me to close the bugs that are marked resolved. You read thru every one of my emails because you dont trust my decisions, understandable, but if you are so worried about my marking a bug wrongly, then maybe you should stop developing, and strictly focus on helping clean up bugzilla, huh? That doesn't make any sense. You're saying I should take even more time away from development to check your changes. or the inverse could be true, maybe you could just trust that if I make a status change, it is the correct thing to do, and if not, then let someone else, who does have more time on their hands, catch it. I'm not the only one that reads each change, and even if I were, and someone else took over, it's still wasted time on their part. Like you said, it's a small amount of bugs that are marked incorrectly. Of that percentage, I represent an even smaller amount, and like I said, I dont blindly close bugs, I read the majority of the comments, especially the ones toward the end, and the initial report, and then make a change only when I am confident that it is the right change to make.. You continue to miss the point from the very beginning: you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. There's nothing wrong with old bugs being left as resolved and marking new bugs closed on a case by case basis. -- James Hawkins
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do read through all of your bug emails, which is exactly the problem, because I don't trust that you make the right decision on every bug, and in some cases I've had to go back and correct it. That is the issue. It has been a small number of cases.. The statement still stands. Resolved isn't resolved enough for you, but closed is...If a bug is marked resolved, I'm pretty sure it's resolved. Obviously someone that commits patches to the upstream bugzilla tree agrees with me, because otherwise, there either wouldnt be a resolved option, OR there would be a close option on the bugs that are in any state of open, which is something I have suggested before, to cut down on list traffic. No one has problems with people correcting bugs that are marked incorrectly, but of the 30 or so bugs a day that you change, this case is a small amount. If you *only* changed this class of bugs, then that would be fine. I honestly dont see why it is such an inconvenience to you for me to close the bugs that are marked resolved. You read thru every one of my emails because you dont trust my decisions, understandable, but if you are so worried about my marking a bug wrongly, then maybe you should stop developing, and strictly focus on helping clean up bugzilla, or the inverse could be true, maybe you could just trust that if I make a status change, it is the correct thing to do, and if not, then let someone else, who does have more time on their hands, catch it. Like you said, it's a small amount of bugs that are marked incorrectly. Of that percentage, I represent an even smaller amount, and like I said, I dont blindly close bugs, I read the majority of the comments, especially the ones toward the end, and the initial report, and then make a change only when I am confident that it is the right change to make.. -- Thanks Tom
Re: Whitespace changes in an indentation patch, is it acceptable?
On 5/31/07, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now that you've fixed a couple bugs in your uninstall patch, I think you should post the very simplest form of it possible, without any other change mixed in. In this case, I think that means you should do the whitespace changes in a second patch. Right, which is the way the patch is already done, I just wanted to see if making changes to the whitespace in other parts of the file (via the 2nd patch, which changes the indentation of my additions) would be considered random whitespace changes, or if it would be helpful, because it reduces filesize.. I recall a few years back (2003?) There was a discussion about removing extra whitespace at the end of lines, and someone came up with a bash/sed script to look thru the entire wine tree, strip trailing whitespace, and then somehow commit it (either with a really large diff, or by it being run on the machine that the upstream tree is on, I cant remember which). Once that was done, the tarballs shrank by at least 1-2 megs in download size, and even more uncompressed. IMHO it may be time to do that again... -- Thanks Tom
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/31/07, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marking bugs as closed has nothing to do with bug triage. Triaging > bugs would be a really helpful thing, but mass-closing bugs does > nothing but give subscribers a whole lot of emails to delete. We > don't keep track of stats like other projects, so there's really no > point to blindly close all bugs that are resolved, instead of closing > bugs on a case by case basis. I'm not blindly closing all bugs marked resolved.. It seems to me that you didnt real thru all of the emails, but I have been posting comments, etc before closing, and there are some that are marked resolved that I did not close, or that I even reopened based on the most recent commentS that indicate the bug might not be fixed, or might actully be a real wine bug.. I do read through all of your bug emails, which is exactly the problem, because I don't trust that you make the right decision on every bug, and in some cases I've had to go back and correct it. That is the issue. > > since invalid isnt really "resolved", and neither is works for me > > But closing these bugs somehow makes them "resolved" for you? It's an organizational thing, if they are closed, then we know for sure that they are resolved. The statement still stands. Resolved isn't resolved enough for you, but closed is...If a bug is marked resolved, I'm pretty sure it's resolved. Since everyone is prone to marking a bug as invalid when it is really a bug, or works for me when it really should be open because some users are experiencing it but not others, leaving it as resolved just says that the person who resolved it was too lazy to close it, and that they didn't check back to make sure that some other users didnt have the same problem.. Case in point: bug 3889, has been resolved as worksforme (i did it over a year ago), when it is really a bug, and has never truely been resolved in wine. I just looked back thru the conversation that took place on wine-devel and saw no definitive response saying that the bug was fixed by an alexandre patch, and saw nothing that says the bug is not a bug, so I am about to reopen it and ask if the issue is fixed in current wine. No one has problems with people correcting bugs that are marked incorrectly, but of the 30 or so bugs a day that you change, this case is a small amount. If you *only* changed this class of bugs, then that would be fine. -- James Hawkins
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marking bugs as closed has nothing to do with bug triage. Triaging bugs would be a really helpful thing, but mass-closing bugs does nothing but give subscribers a whole lot of emails to delete. We don't keep track of stats like other projects, so there's really no point to blindly close all bugs that are resolved, instead of closing bugs on a case by case basis. I'm not blindly closing all bugs marked resolved.. It seems to me that you didnt real thru all of the emails, but I have been posting comments, etc before closing, and there are some that are marked resolved that I did not close, or that I even reopened based on the most recent commentS that indicate the bug might not be fixed, or might actully be a real wine bug.. > since invalid isnt really "resolved", and neither is works for me But closing these bugs somehow makes them "resolved" for you? It's an organizational thing, if they are closed, then we know for sure that they are resolved. Since everyone is prone to marking a bug as invalid when it is really a bug, or works for me when it really should be open because some users are experiencing it but not others, leaving it as resolved just says that the person who resolved it was too lazy to close it, and that they didn't check back to make sure that some other users didnt have the same problem.. Case in point: bug 3889, has been resolved as worksforme (i did it over a year ago), when it is really a bug, and has never truely been resolved in wine. I just looked back thru the conversation that took place on wine-devel and saw no definitive response saying that the bug was fixed by an alexandre patch, and saw nothing that says the bug is not a bug, so I am about to reopen it and ask if the issue is fixed in current wine. -- Thanks Tom
Re: GDI+: headers and one test
On Thursday 31 May 2007 06:59:09 am Francois Gouget wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/GdiplusTypes.h
> [...]
> +typedef enum {
> [...]
> +} Status;
>
> Hmm, this is not the same as the PSDK. The PSDK only defines 'enum
> Status { ... }' which, in theory, should only allow one to use 'enum
> Status' and not 'Status'. Yet the PSDK headers seem to make use of
> 'Status'. This might be different in C++ though...
> So on the whole it's probably ok to use a typedef. I just prefer to
> bring this up so others can chime in.
C++ auto-typedefs structs/classes, enums, and the like.
enum Status { };
in C++ would be equivilant to:
typedef enum Status { } Status;
in C. And yes, both the enum and typedef can have the same name.. the compiler
is smart enough to tell the difference between 'enum Status' and 'Status'
being used as types. Both can be used interchangeabley, too.
re: Whitespace changes in an indentation patch, is it acceptable?
Tom wrote: Hi all, just curious, in my work on uninstaller, I am writing my patches to where when indentation is changed, due to adding a for loop, it is done in a separate patch file. I was wondering if it is acceptable to make whitespace changes to other parts of the file in that same patch. In general, mixing large whitespace changes with small functional changes make it hard to code review the functional change. But either way can be fine, it just depends on the situation. Now that you've fixed a couple bugs in your uninstall patch, I think you should post the very simplest form of it possible, without any other change mixed in. In this case, I think that means you should do the whitespace changes in a second patch. - Dan
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, I just have a quick question.. I got a message from someone last night asking me to stop closing bugs because I'm spamming the list, however I also received a message from someone a couple of nights ago thanking me for doing bug triage.. Which is it, and if it is both, then what draws the line between triage and spam, and how do I close stale bugs without it being considered spam? Marking bugs as closed has nothing to do with bug triage. Triaging bugs would be a really helpful thing, but mass-closing bugs does nothing but give subscribers a whole lot of emails to delete. We don't keep track of stats like other projects, so there's really no point to blindly close all bugs that are resolved, instead of closing bugs on a case by case basis. since invalid isnt really "resolved", and neither is works for me But closing these bugs somehow makes them "resolved" for you? -- James Hawkins
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:04:00AM -0500, Tom Spear wrote: > On 5/31/07, Ben Hodgetts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Can someone explain to me the point of closing bugs please? If it's > >resolved one way or another then surely that's enough? Just seems like a > >waste of effort to be honest. > > Well, I can tell you this about it, it's supposed to work like this: > > - User reports bug > - Developer looks into bug, and eventually fixes it, at which point he > marks it resolved, and asks user to verify > - User says yes it is resolved and marks it verified, or says no it is > not, at which point developer reopens bug, and the process repeats > - Once marked verified, developer then goes back and closes bug. > > It hardly ever works that way, unfortunately, but I prefer to see a > bunch of closed bugs than ones that are sitting marked resolved as > invalid, or resolved as works for me, etc, since invalid isnt really > "resolved", and neither is works for me.. Thats why I go thru and > close the bugs that are just left resolved for more than a month or 2. Well, but in theory they could sit at resolved until the end of time ;) But keep it up, people can just delete those RESOLVED->CLOSED transition mails. Ciao, Marcus
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
On 5/31/07, Ben Hodgetts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can someone explain to me the point of closing bugs please? If it's resolved one way or another then surely that's enough? Just seems like a waste of effort to be honest. Well, I can tell you this about it, it's supposed to work like this: - User reports bug - Developer looks into bug, and eventually fixes it, at which point he marks it resolved, and asks user to verify - User says yes it is resolved and marks it verified, or says no it is not, at which point developer reopens bug, and the process repeats - Once marked verified, developer then goes back and closes bug. It hardly ever works that way, unfortunately, but I prefer to see a bunch of closed bugs than ones that are sitting marked resolved as invalid, or resolved as works for me, etc, since invalid isnt really "resolved", and neither is works for me.. Thats why I go thru and close the bugs that are just left resolved for more than a month or 2. -- Thanks Tom
Re: mshtml #2: Added warning if a wrong Wine Gecko package version was found.
Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Jacek Caban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Yes, that's my plan, but I'm not sure why it's important for this patch. >> Currently Wine downloads always the same Gecko version that was never >> updated, so this check should work with current Wine. It will change >> once we will switch to the new version. I have patches that will use >> query encoded in URL to specify the package version and it will use the >> same defined version string as version check in this patch, so switching >> to the new Gecko won't be much more than one line patch.. It requires >> changes both in Wine and redirecting php script. I have patches for both >> and this was the first patch in this direction. I only have to test the >> rest of patches and send them (hopefully I will find the time to do it >> tonight). >> > > My concern is that this sort of thing needs to be planned correctly to > work in the long run, and it's not clear what the purpose of that > version check is. Is there a dependency that would make Wine require a > specific version? What happens if you use a new Gecko with an old > Wine? Can you make different versions coexist? > The plan is to pass the version in URL query. Then the redirecting script will take care on choosing the correct file from SourceForge. It's backward compatible as older Wine won't pass the version so script will assume that an old Gecko is requested. The new Gecko doesn't work with old Wine (that's why we have to guaranty that it will download an old Gecko). It's because we depend on some Gecko behaviors that have changed. It's both due to Wine (we have to do some not nice tricks, to not say ugly hacks, to make loading document work correctly) and not perfect backward compatibility of Gecko. Also it's not guarantied that newer Wine will work with older Gecko. Currently it will work, that's why I think simple message is enough for now to not force people to download over 5MB if their apps work without it. But we have to use some unfrozen interfaces and they may change in the future preventing backward compatibility. Although we probably could add some workarounds when it will happen, I would be painful to support few Gecko version. So if it will happen in the future, then we can change this check to never use older Gecko (and perhaps add a nice updater). By coexisting different versions you mean in one Wine prefix? Yes, it would be possible, but I don't see much point of it. If you think it should be done this way, I may implement so (it prevents current patches, these changes would be in another peace of code). >> We are very far from being able to support other archs, so I thought >> it's not worth to care about it ATM. >> > > But then there's no sense in adding #ifdefs for it. Putting the > architecture in the request wouldn't be much harder, and would avoid > hardcoding in the client knowledge about what files are available on > the server. > I've sent patches that replace previous ones. There are removed #ifdefs. We may back to arch problem later, just like we do now with different versions. Thanks, Jacek
Re:wine.inf: Create fake dll for iexplore.exe.
>wine.inf: Create fake dll for >iexplore.exe. >Vitaliy Margolen >wine-patches at kievinfo.com >Thu May 24 08:50:10 CDT 2007 >Some older programs check if IE is installed looking for c:\Program >Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe --- tools/wine.inf |1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 5d5627890e959f7208122b32f60035a59b566e72.diff Type: text/x-patch Size: 353 bytes Desc: not available Hi, after comittment of this patch , I still don't see a fake c:\Program Files\Internet explorer\iexplore.exe. It appears this should be handled in differrent way. Somehow the directory "Internet Explorer" should be created first, right? Or am I missing something? - Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Tryit now.
Re: Bug triage, or spam?
Can someone explain to me the point of closing bugs please? If it's resolved one way or another then surely that's enough? Just seems like a waste of effort to be honest. Ben H. Tom Spear wrote: > Hi all, I just have a quick question.. > > I got a message from someone last night asking me to stop closing bugs > because I'm spamming the list, however I also received a message from > someone a couple of nights ago thanking me for doing bug triage.. > Which is it, and if it is both, then what draws the line between > triage and spam, and how do I close stale bugs without it being > considered spam? >
Whitespace changes in an indentation patch, is it acceptable?
Hi all, just curious, in my work on uninstaller, I am writing my
patches to where when indentation is changed, due to adding a for
loop, it is done in a separate patch file. I was wondering if it is
acceptable to make whitespace changes to other parts of the file in
that same patch.. For example, there is:
int somevariable;
do something;
(there are 2 spaces in the blank line). Would it be acceptable to
remove those spaces in a patch that changes the following code (which
is introduced by the first patch in the series):
for blah
{
do something;
for something else
{
do another thing;
}
}
to:
for blah
{
do something;
for something else
{
do another thing;
}
}
or should I just leave those extra whitespaces in the blank line alone?
--
Thanks
Tom
Re: GDI+: headers and one test
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, this is not the same as the PSDK. The PSDK only defines 'enum
> Status { ... }' which, in theory, should only allow one to use 'enum
> Status' and not 'Status'. Yet the PSDK headers seem to make use of
> 'Status'. This might be different in C++ though...
> So on the whole it's probably ok to use a typedef. I just prefer to
> bring this up so others can chime in.
I think it's better without the typedef, in C we can simply use 'enum
Status'.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GDI+: headers and one test
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Evan Stade wrote:
[...]
> include/Gdiplus.h| 10 +
> include/GdiplusEnums.h | 39 ++
> include/GdiplusFlat.h| 23 ++
> include/GdiplusGpStubs.h | 10 +
> include/GdiplusInit.h| 26
> include/GdiplusTypes.h |7 +++
All filenames in Wine should be lowercase.
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/Gdiplus.h
[...]
+
+#ifndef __cplusplus
Why check for __cplusplus here? The PSDK contains no such check, at
least in this file.
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/GdiplusEnums.h
[...]
+#ifndef _GP_ENUMERATIONS_H_
+#define _GP_ENUMERATIONS_H_
The standard format for Wine headers is __WINE_HEADERNAME_H, unless we
need to keep the original macro name for compatibility with the PSDK.
But here you're following neither conventions (the other headers would
need to be rechecked but they seem to keep the PSDK names).
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/GdiplusFlat.h
[...]
+GpStatus WINGDIPAPI GdipCreateFromHDC(HDC hdc, GpGraphics **graphics);
+GpStatus WINGDIPAPI GdipDeleteGraphics(GpGraphics *graphics);
Wine headers generally don't keep the parameter names in the headers as
they are not needed.
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/GdiplusTypes.h
[...]
+typedef enum {
[...]
+} Status;
Hmm, this is not the same as the PSDK. The PSDK only defines 'enum
Status { ... }' which, in theory, should only allow one to use 'enum
Status' and not 'Status'. Yet the PSDK headers seem to make use of
'Status'. This might be different in C++ though...
So on the whole it's probably ok to use a typedef. I just prefer to
bring this up so others can chime in.
--
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fgouget.free.fr/
La terre est une bêta...
Bug triage, or spam?
Hi all, I just have a quick question.. I got a message from someone last night asking me to stop closing bugs because I'm spamming the list, however I also received a message from someone a couple of nights ago thanking me for doing bug triage.. Which is it, and if it is both, then what draws the line between triage and spam, and how do I close stale bugs without it being considered spam? -- Thanks Tom
Re: mshtml #2: Added warning if a wrong Wine Gecko package version was found.
Jacek Caban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, that's my plan, but I'm not sure why it's important for this patch. > Currently Wine downloads always the same Gecko version that was never > updated, so this check should work with current Wine. It will change > once we will switch to the new version. I have patches that will use > query encoded in URL to specify the package version and it will use the > same defined version string as version check in this patch, so switching > to the new Gecko won't be much more than one line patch.. It requires > changes both in Wine and redirecting php script. I have patches for both > and this was the first patch in this direction. I only have to test the > rest of patches and send them (hopefully I will find the time to do it > tonight). My concern is that this sort of thing needs to be planned correctly to work in the long run, and it's not clear what the purpose of that version check is. Is there a dependency that would make Wine require a specific version? What happens if you use a new Gecko with an old Wine? Can you make different versions coexist? > We are very far from being able to support other archs, so I thought > it's not worth to care about it ATM. But then there's no sense in adding #ifdefs for it. Putting the architecture in the request wouldn't be much harder, and would avoid hardcoding in the client knowledge about what files are available on the server. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
