2 ms·
sure, I'm not saying the team should take the burden of doing the testing on a given set of windows software (even the 100 most popular one, whatever it means)
by allan_s 11y ago
sure, I'm not saying the team should take the burden of doing the testing on a given set of windows software (even the 100 most popular one, whatever it means)
What I wanted to express is that, as I guess the development is followed by a community of people to which it has been said that future version of wine will fix their current compatibility problem, they may have got some feedback of said people "hey cool now whateversoft version x.y works" and gathered a list of said software, especially if it does include some big names.
- yareally 11y ago> "What I wanted to express is that, as I guess the development is followed by a community of people to which it has been said that future version of wine will fix their current compatibility problem, they may have got some feedback of said people "hey cool now whateversoft version x.y works" and gathered a list of said software, especially if it does include some big names." I thought that's what this[1] was for. [1] https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=19444 https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iI...
- allan_s 11y agoyes, that's what it is for outside of the release cycle to know if a given software work. But here it's an announcement where you explain changes to the community between previous version and this version. So I was thinking that it may have been interesting to have a brief list of software from the database you've linked that have turned form garbage to bronze etc.
- 0xcde4c3db 11y agoAt least in my experience, Wine compatibility is usually not binary. Programs don't go from "non-working" to "working" so much as they progress from "intolerable bugginess" to "tolerable bugginess" to "trivial bugginess", with the thresholds between those categories being highly subjective.