Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote:
>> What about clarifying the wording on
>> http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings
>> ?
>> My suggestion for "Platinum":
>> "Application installs and runs flawlessly completely/at highest settings
>> 'out of the box'. No changes required in winecfg."
>> (add "completely/at highest settings")
> I think it's fine as is. Some games won't run at highest settings on
> Windows, due to crappy video card, etc.
Good point. I was thinking about games that run fine in Windows at highest
settings but do not in Wine (on the same machine). What about
"Application installs and runs just as it does in Windows, without
any custom Wine tweaks or settings."?
There's still a 'loophole' with for example hardware that works fine in
Windows but doesn't in *nix (ATI graphics cards...) but probably it's no
good to add tons of fine print to that definition.
>> For "Gold":
>> "Application works completely/at highest settings flawlessly in the latest
>> Wine development release (no patches needed), possibly with DLL overrides,
>> other settings, or third party software."
>> (add same as above; add "latest Wine development release"; remove "*some*
>> DLL overrides)
> The ratings are done on a per version basis, so no need to stipulate
> the latest release. The patches and DLL comments I agree with.
"Application works just as it does in Windows with unpatched Wine,
possibly with DLL overrides, other settings, or third party software."?
[Patched Wine versions and Gold rating]
> I see it quite a bit when approving programs in the AppDB (though I'm
> not the one usually doing it, I only go through the queue when I'm on
> the AppDB for other reasons). The main problem is when it get a
> _platinum_ rating.
I agree. Still, I feel that Gold should mean "an average user should be
able to get the game running completely", and while with winetricks etc.
adding DLL overrides is no problem, patching/building Wine probably IS.
Also this might be an incentive to get patches into Wine proper instead of
leaving hacks in AppDB/Bugzilla ("Well, the game is gold now, no need to
fix things further"). Not sure whether I'm realistic here though ;-).
>> I also suggest to hyperlink every mention of "Rating" in the browser with
>> that page. Otherwise it isn't completely clear (without searching) what the
>> individual ratings mean really.
[...]
>> Who has the rights to change AppDB on that level?
> I'll send a patch tomorrow. If you don't see a change within a few
> days, remind me.
Cool, thanks a lot!
Regards
Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Ben Klein wrote: > Mentioning bug severity levels in appdb submission rules is asking for > trouble. Most appdb users don't use bugzilla at all. Agreed. Please bottom post on Wine mailing lists. > 2008/12/16 Rosanne DiMesio : >> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:28:18 -0600 >> "Austin English" wrote: >> >>> 2008/12/15 M.Kiesel : >>> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote: >>> > >>> >> If I had a nickel for every times I've seen platinum and gold ratings for >>> >> apps that had dozens of native dlls or complicated scripts to work around >>> >> wine bugs, I'd be a much richer man. >>> > >>> > What about clarifying the wording on >>> > http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings >>> > ? >>> > >> >> I've been thinking about this myself. >> >> My suggestion for "Platinum": >> >> Application runs as well as on Windows "out of the box" (no changes required >> in winecfg) and has no open, confirmed bugs with a severity higher than >> enhancement. >> >> My suggestion for "Gold": >> >> Application runs as well as on Windows with some tweaks. Any open, confirmed >> bugs with a severity higher than "trivial" can be worked around with dll >> overrides, other settings, or third party software. >> >> My rationale: >> >> 1. If an app doesn't run flawlessly on Windows (and how many do?), we >> shouldn't expect it to run flawlessly in Wine. >> 2. With complex apps like Word or Photoshop, testers often test only the >> basic functions, and give a gold or platinum rating based solely on that. >> Word 2003 currently has 19 bugs linked to it, of which 11 are confirmed, but >> someone who tested only basic word processing functions could legitimately >> give it a platinum rating under the current guidelines. We can't force >> people to test everything, but we can at least limit the top ratings based >> on known bugs. I like the 'runs as well as on Windows' bit... Much better metric, and accounts for hardware differences, etc. -- -Austin
Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
Mentioning bug severity levels in appdb submission rules is asking for trouble. Most appdb users don't use bugzilla at all. 2008/12/16 Rosanne DiMesio : > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:28:18 -0600 > "Austin English" wrote: > >> 2008/12/15 M.Kiesel : >> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote: >> > >> >> If I had a nickel for every times I've seen platinum and gold ratings for >> >> apps that had dozens of native dlls or complicated scripts to work around >> >> wine bugs, I'd be a much richer man. >> > >> > What about clarifying the wording on >> > http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings >> > ? >> > > > I've been thinking about this myself. > > My suggestion for "Platinum": > > Application runs as well as on Windows "out of the box" (no changes required > in winecfg) and has no open, confirmed bugs with a severity higher than > enhancement. > > My suggestion for "Gold": > > Application runs as well as on Windows with some tweaks. Any open, confirmed > bugs with a severity higher than "trivial" can be worked around with dll > overrides, other settings, or third party software. > > My rationale: > > 1. If an app doesn't run flawlessly on Windows (and how many do?), we > shouldn't expect it to run flawlessly in Wine. > 2. With complex apps like Word or Photoshop, testers often test only the > basic functions, and give a gold or platinum rating based solely on that. > Word 2003 currently has 19 bugs linked to it, of which 11 are confirmed, but > someone who tested only basic word processing functions could legitimately > give it a platinum rating under the current guidelines. We can't force people > to test everything, but we can at least limit the top ratings based on known > bugs. > > Rosanne DiMesio > > >
Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:28:18 -0600 "Austin English" wrote: > 2008/12/15 M.Kiesel : > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote: > > > >> If I had a nickel for every times I've seen platinum and gold ratings for > >> apps that had dozens of native dlls or complicated scripts to work around > >> wine bugs, I'd be a much richer man. > > > > What about clarifying the wording on > > http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings > > ? > > I've been thinking about this myself. My suggestion for "Platinum": Application runs as well as on Windows "out of the box" (no changes required in winecfg) and has no open, confirmed bugs with a severity higher than enhancement. My suggestion for "Gold": Application runs as well as on Windows with some tweaks. Any open, confirmed bugs with a severity higher than "trivial" can be worked around with dll overrides, other settings, or third party software. My rationale: 1. If an app doesn't run flawlessly on Windows (and how many do?), we shouldn't expect it to run flawlessly in Wine. 2. With complex apps like Word or Photoshop, testers often test only the basic functions, and give a gold or platinum rating based solely on that. Word 2003 currently has 19 bugs linked to it, of which 11 are confirmed, but someone who tested only basic word processing functions could legitimately give it a platinum rating under the current guidelines. We can't force people to test everything, but we can at least limit the top ratings based on known bugs. Rosanne DiMesio
Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
2008/12/15 M.Kiesel : > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote: > >> If I had a nickel for every times I've seen platinum and gold ratings for >> apps that had dozens of native dlls or complicated scripts to work around >> wine bugs, I'd be a much richer man. > > What about clarifying the wording on > http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings > ? > > My suggestion for "Platinum": > "Application installs and runs flawlessly completely/at highest settings > 'out of the box'. No changes required in winecfg." > (add "completely/at highest settings") I think it's fine as is. Some games won't run at highest settings on Windows, due to crappy video card, etc. > For "Gold": > "Application works completely/at highest settings flawlessly in the latest > Wine development release (no patches needed), possibly with DLL overrides, > other settings, or third party software." > (add same as above; add "latest Wine development release"; remove "*some* > DLL overrides) The ratings are done on a per version basis, so no need to stipulate the latest release. The patches and DLL comments I agree with. > I feel that games that are playable only at low settings shouldn't get Gold > or Platinum ratings at all. Other opinions? Depends on how they run in Windows on the same hardware ;-). > Austin: I think for apps that run completely with tweaks a Gold rating is > okay regardless of the number of tweaks involved; for the user it doesn't > matter really whether one or ten DLLs have to be overridden. I wouldn't go > as far as allowing patched Wine versions though. I don't disagree with that, though I see it quite a bit when approving programs in the AppDB (though I'm not the one usually doing it, I only go through the queue when I'm on the AppDB for other reasons). The main problem is when it get a _platinum_ rating. > I also suggest to hyperlink every mention of "Rating" in the browser with > that page. Otherwise it isn't completely clear (without searching) what the > individual ratings mean really. Agreed. > Who has the rights to change AppDB on that level? I'll send a patch tomorrow. If you don't see a change within a few days, remind me. -- -Austin
Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
I think that Highest Settings is unfair, there are issues with many games in Windows with settings maxed (Check Oblivion forums, every problem we have in wine is also had by people in native windows). Default settings is a far more appropriate measuring stick. I also think there needs to be a reviewer meta-review system, similar to slashdot's karma system. There are a few reviewers consistently rating 1 or 2 steps above what they should. "Rating: Gold. What doesn't work: Sound. What wasn't tested: Multiplayer." WTF? 2008/12/15 M.Kiesel : > My suggestion for "Platinum": > "Application installs and runs flawlessly completely/at highest settings > 'out of the box'. No changes required in winecfg." > (add "completely/at highest settings") > > For "Gold": > "Application works completely/at highest settings flawlessly in the latest > Wine development release (no patches needed), possibly with DLL overrides, > other settings, or third party software." > (add same as above; add "latest Wine development release"; remove "*some* > DLL overrides) > > I feel that games that are playable only at low settings shouldn't get Gold > or Platinum ratings at all. Other opinions? > > Austin: I think for apps that run completely with tweaks a Gold rating is > okay regardless of the number of tweaks involved; for the user it doesn't > matter really whether one or ten DLLs have to be overridden. I wouldn't go > as far as allowing patched Wine versions though. > > I also suggest to hyperlink every mention of "Rating" in the browser with > that page. Otherwise it isn't completely clear (without searching) what the > individual ratings mean really. > Who has the rights to change AppDB on that level? > > Regards
AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote: If I had a nickel for every times I've seen platinum and gold ratings for apps that had dozens of native dlls or complicated scripts to work around wine bugs, I'd be a much richer man. What about clarifying the wording on http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings ? My suggestion for "Platinum": "Application installs and runs flawlessly completely/at highest settings ‘out of the box‘. No changes required in winecfg." (add "completely/at highest settings") For "Gold": "Application works completely/at highest settings flawlessly in the latest Wine development release (no patches needed), possibly with DLL overrides, other settings, or third party software." (add same as above; add "latest Wine development release"; remove "*some* DLL overrides) I feel that games that are playable only at low settings shouldn't get Gold or Platinum ratings at all. Other opinions? Austin: I think for apps that run completely with tweaks a Gold rating is okay regardless of the number of tweaks involved; for the user it doesn't matter really whether one or ten DLLs have to be overridden. I wouldn't go as far as allowing patched Wine versions though. I also suggest to hyperlink every mention of "Rating" in the browser with that page. Otherwise it isn't completely clear (without searching) what the individual ratings mean really. Who has the rights to change AppDB on that level? Regards
