Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Dan Kegel wrote: > I've updated http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria > to be a bit more final. > > I've also written a draft release plan; see > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan > > Comments? My understanding is that Wine 1.0's goal has never been to run everything under the sun but more to put a stake in the ground saying 'now all the infrastructure is in place' and a change of gears to care more about not introducing regressions. So I'd say that among the most important things to do for 1.0 is to: * make sure the conformance tests are correct. Currently a large fraction of them still fails on various Windows platforms which proves that they are far from correct (despite Paul Vriens' great work). As a start we could shoot for less than 10% failure on XP, 2003 and Vista for instance. Right now we stand at about 37%. * make sure the conformance tests work in Wine. This is actually on the 1.0 bug list (bugs 7915 and 9916) but lost in the middle of the 99 bugs there's no chance they will be looked at very much. * I'd also consider '421 - Implement a DIB engine (framework)' as belonging to that list as it's clearly part of the infrastructure and has been needed for a long time (and the infrastructure part is within reach). Also while I agree about having a small set of 'must run' applications, I think that most of the other application-specific issues can be moved to 1.1 (or future) right away: 5807 - Mercora IMRadio crashes while attempting to run 6048 - wine crashes while starting Strokes russian language course 2547 - word perfect 12 trial fails to install 6095 - MOTD in counter-strike 1.6 and counter-strike source does not render 5535 - Planescape:Torment doesn't work 1114 - Winrar2.90/3.00: Comboex doesn't trigger a event when you mouse-click in some value of it 3023 - Orcad - "Place Part" never tries to put down a part 3711 - Musicmatch fails to install (missing registry key, HTTP_HttpOpenRequest() problem) 4770 - BlackBerry Device Manager fails to install under wine 4971 - Corel Draw 12 demo install fails 5024 - Thief: Deadly Shadows crashes:page fault on read access to 0x040c 5163 - Office XP 2002 crashes on installation 5402 - Trying to run PhotoStitch 3.1 5828 - Command and Conquer Generals (Zero Hour) doesn't change the mouse cursor from the default X mouse 6126 - SoulSeek crashes 6526 - Typing Instructor for Kids 2 fails to install 6795 - Skype 3.0.0.137 Beta dies trying to login in win98, winme mode 7877 - Weatherbug install stops because of missing ie6 8095 - PQ Teaching toy crashes 8125 - Marratech 6.1 crashes on start 8898 - Run Time Error "445": Object doesn't support this action in Europa Knowledgebase 9030 - army men hangs on black screen 9039 - GS-Auftrag Professional SQL aborts on startup 9104 - Pdf-xchange viewer crashes 9304 - Temple of Elemental Evil demo doesn't start - gui irresponsive 9459 - FIFA 2007 crashes with the recent versions 9637 - Switchball only shows a blank screen 9809 - Autodesk Revit Architecture 2008 install fails 9895 - Alzip crashes: Invalid float operation 9942 - Powerpoint Viewer 2007 crashes opening .pptx files 10147 - Word Viewer 2003 - Tab behavior differs from Windows 10815 - Cannot drag images into Adobe Photoshop 7 from the web / desktop 10905 - thinstall firefox demo requires native msvcrt 10984 - sun jre 5 update 10 installer hangs in 0.9.52 11431 - Adobe Photoshop CS2: z-overlay of image containers 9469 - Adobe Photoshop Elements 1 welcome dialog options don't work 5948 - Star Trek: Armada does not install 7098 - RufzXP crashes on startup, needs mscoree.dll.CorBindToRuntimeEx There, add a mere two bugs and remove 38. Isn't that a sweet deal? -- Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fgouget.free.fr/ Avoid the Gates of Hell - use Linux.
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's not as hard as it sounds. > You might consider adapting existing automated installer > scripts such as the ones at http://wpkg.org/ or > http://unattended.sourceforge.net/ > > There are surely dozens of apps that are > have freely downloadable versions and > can have automated installs. All of them > ought to be part of the release criteria; > we're just short on manpower to write those scripts. > - Dan We had talked a while back about doing this, but it seems it never went anywhere. If you'd like Dan, I can probably write a few of those...Just send me an e-mail with what you want/an example. -Austin
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
Dan Kegel wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Alexandre Julliard > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan >> >> We need a code freeze and stabilization period before the release. My >> thinking is that we should have a 1.0rc1 release, probably sometime in >> May, and from that point on only accept small obvious fixes. Then we'd >> have rc2, rc3, etc. as needed until the bug list gets small enough. And >> by rc1 (or even earlier) any bug that requires more than a small simple >> patch would be deferred to 1.1.0. >> > > How's it look now? > - Dan > > > Dan: How much of a pain would it be to switch to weekly releases during the rc period to catch patches and regresssions? James
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you can provide an automated test case for your > favorite platinum app, so that we can just run it without > any manual work, I'll gladly add it to the list. That's not as hard as it sounds. You might consider adapting existing automated installer scripts such as the ones at http://wpkg.org/ or http://unattended.sourceforge.net/ There are surely dozens of apps that are have freely downloadable versions and can have automated installs. All of them ought to be part of the release criteria; we're just short on manpower to write those scripts. - Dan
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Remco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What about growing the list with a few applications that work perfectly at > the moment (such as the top 10 platinum rated apps)? The problem with expanding the list is that each new app adds a huge amount of testing to each release. If you can provide an automated test case for your favorite platinum app, so that we can just run it without any manual work, I'll gladly add it to the list. - Dan p.s. http://appdb.winehq.org/browse_by_rating.php lists 1227 (that's over a thousand!) platinum applications. I'm willing to bet that the real number is a lot lower.
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
- Original Message > From: Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've updated http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria > to be a bit more final. > > I've also written a draft release plan; see > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan > > Comments? Please note that I'm not complaining, but doesn't that list of criteriaseem a little disappointing? I know what Wine is capable of, but you'retelling the world that, after 15 years, Wine 1.0 is guaranteed to runabout 4 applications. What about growing the list with a few applications that work perfectly at the moment (such as the top 10 platinum rated apps)? There is of course a slight stability problem (mandatory updates) with the Steam apps in that top 10 list, so those would have to be excluded. Remco ___ Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
Michael Stefaniuc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexandre Julliard wrote: >> We need a code freeze and stabilization period before the release. My >> thinking is that we should have a 1.0rc1 release, probably sometime in >> May, and from that point on only accept small obvious fixes. Then we'd > What about small janitorial patches? Obvious low risk patches could go in, but I don't see much need to put in janitorial patches during the rc phase, they can just as well wait until 1.0 is out. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
"Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Alexandre Julliard > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan >> >> We need a code freeze and stabilization period before the release. My >> thinking is that we should have a 1.0rc1 release, probably sometime in >> May, and from that point on only accept small obvious fixes. Then we'd >> have rc2, rc3, etc. as needed until the bug list gets small enough. And >> by rc1 (or even earlier) any bug that requires more than a small simple >> patch would be deferred to 1.1.0. > > How's it look now? Looks good, now we need to work on shrinking that bug list... -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
Michael Stefaniuc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > thinking is that we should have a 1.0rc1 release, probably sometime in > > May, and from that point on only accept small obvious fixes. Then we'd > What about small janitorial patches? If they have low risk, and are obvious, they might well go in.
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
Alexandre Julliard wrote: > "Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I've updated http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria >> to be a bit more final. >> >> I've also written a draft release plan; see >> http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan >> >> Comments? > > We need a code freeze and stabilization period before the release. My > thinking is that we should have a 1.0rc1 release, probably sometime in > May, and from that point on only accept small obvious fixes. Then we'd What about small janitorial patches? > have rc2, rc3, etc. as needed until the bug list gets small enough. And > by rc1 (or even earlier) any bug that requires more than a small simple > patch would be deferred to 1.1.0. bye michael
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan > > We need a code freeze and stabilization period before the release. My > thinking is that we should have a 1.0rc1 release, probably sometime in > May, and from that point on only accept small obvious fixes. Then we'd > have rc2, rc3, etc. as needed until the bug list gets small enough. And > by rc1 (or even earlier) any bug that requires more than a small simple > patch would be deferred to 1.1.0. How's it look now? - Dan
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
"Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've updated http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria > to be a bit more final. > > I've also written a draft release plan; see > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan > > Comments? We need a code freeze and stabilization period before the release. My thinking is that we should have a 1.0rc1 release, probably sometime in May, and from that point on only accept small obvious fixes. Then we'd have rc2, rc3, etc. as needed until the bug list gets small enough. And by rc1 (or even earlier) any bug that requires more than a small simple patch would be deferred to 1.1.0. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
Dan Kegel wrote: > I've updated http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria > to be a bit more final. > > I've also written a draft release plan; see > http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan > > Comments? > > > +1 to the release plan. James McKenzie
Updated 1.0.0 release criteria; draft 1.0.0 release plan
I've updated http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria to be a bit more final. I've also written a draft release plan; see http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan Comments?
