On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Austin English <austinengl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Nathaniel Gray <n8g...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > No. Because that allows for all sorts of dirty hacks, and is confusing > to users. Ratings should specify default wine. They can list patches, > etc., in the comments, with a note of how well it works.
It seems to me that digging through comments to find out if a report refers to a version that was patched is more confusing than having it advertised right up front in the version string. And it makes sense -- a patched 1.1.11 is not the same *version* as 1.1.11. Cheers, -n8 -- Nathan Gray http://www.n8gray.org/