On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, James Mckenzie <jjmckenzi...@earthlink.net> wrote: > No, the appdb should not be touched. Rosanne said it correctly, ordinary > users are NOT going to take the time to build Wine, nor should they. We can > put in the bug report that the patch works and whether or not it has been > submitted. Sometimes a patch is to rough or a real hack that breaks other > programs, but with refinement is acceptable and will be incorporated into > Wine. The appdb needs to stay as clean as it can. Of course, you can always > add a bug report to the appdb entry, add comments and let users decide what > they want to do. Rating a rogue patched Wine as Gold is very misleading. We > need to keep ratings to what is available for the ordinary, unknowing user > (read nOOb.)
Ok, I can see that nobody agrees with me here. I think the suggestion helps newbies *and* experts by keeping them sorted out. The situation where some reports are against patched versions and others arent, and you have to dig into the details to figure out which is which doesn't serve anybody. Excluding patched versions entirely is one way of solving the problem, but it seems to me that you're going to have a hard time stopping people from reporting results against patched versions. Binning all patched versions into "Bronze" isn't great, since some of us *do* want to know if we can make an app work with a patch, and in fact quite a few of us Linux users fall into that category. But anyway, I've made my argument and I'll drop it now. Cheers, -n8 -- Nathan Gray http://www.n8gray.org/
