Rob Shearman <robertshear...@gmail.com> writes: > 2009/4/9 Dan Kegel <d...@kegel.com>: >> (This was last discussed in February, e.g. >> http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2009-February/073060.html ) >> >> The results on test.winehq.org seem more variable than one >> would expect, which makes it harder to gauge wine's progress. >> >> I can think of two sources of noise: >> 1) 32 and 64 bit results are mixed together >> 2) we don't have a stable stable (sic) of machines >> running the tests >> >> Removing these two sources of noise might be as simple as >> 1) omit 64 bit results, and > > Not a bad idea, but I would suggest classifying these machines as a > different category (I would suggest "other" for the moment) rather > than omitting the results.
Having the 64-bit results in the same platform group as the 32-bit ones is actually very helpful, it makes comparing them a lot easier. I don't think we want to split them. -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org
