On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Rosanne DiMesio <dime...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Now, the story changes if the patch is conforming and has been accepted >> by AJ and is pending the next development release. >> > Then the next development release can get the gold, but previous ones still > shouldn't. AppDB test ratings are tied to specific releases, and intended to > tell normal users how different versions of Wine will work with their app. > Patching Wine is not something normal users can or want to do, and allowing > ratings based on patched versions of Wine is misleading, even if the patch > does eventually make it in to a later release.
It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated. Cheers, -n8 -- Nathan Gray http://www.n8gray.org/
