Dan Kegel wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> When running tests for the patch, I think we should just run the tests >> of the dlls that are affected direct;y or indirectly by that change. >> its running the tests for entire wine, which is very time consuming. > > True, but hey, it was easier to code. And getting anything like this > working at all is pretty hard. Figuring out which tests a give > patch affects is an extra challenge I'd rather not face just now. > Once it's up and working well we can refine it.
I'd argue that testing just the affected dll is correct. What about things like patches to ntdll/kernel32/advapi32 (and the likes). They could influence far more tests then just the ones for it's own dll. -- Cheers, Paul.
