milon wrote: middings wrote:
Webunny wrote:(W)e could establish the rule that working builds are placed in green, not-working on(es) in red, and partially working ones in orange letters.
I'm puzzled about what "working" means in this context. A set of defined, objective criteria that is more specific than "working" and "partially working" might describe the results in a much more useful and consistent manner.
I'm kind of with middings on this. The definition for "working" will change over time as ROS improves. It may also change if/when significant core changes are made that introduce regressions or unearth nasty bugs. Personally, I would simplify it down to 2 categories: Working (at minimum it boots to desktop) and Not Working (fails to reach desktop). The comments section can be used to elaborate on anything else.
Well, that's basically what I said. Apart from the 'partially working' as a category on itself, but I wasn't really fixed on that, it was merely because with software testing, they had that kind of similar levels.
And I don't think it will change that much: it runs or it doesn't. That's exactly why I would want to keep it simple, because if your talking whether a particular application or (sub)system works on ROS, it becomes a whole other ballgame, because then it could be a problem specific to that application or subsystem, and not ROS as OS.
You already see that on some comments, which are saying 'no sound' or something to that regard. but, well: I don't have sound neither. Until I manually install the drivers, and then I do get sound. It's not REALLY a fault or an error of the OS, thus. I would say the OS is working just fine, in that case, and if someone wants to elaborate on things, he can do so on the comments-section and/or with a reference/link for further details.
Anyway, it isn't all that problematic. When it works, it means it boots, gets you to the desktop, and the system is responsive (aka, you can open the pre-installed applications, for instance). When it hangs or get a BSOD or doesn't you to the desktop at all, that constitutes 'not working'.
If people are unclear about 'partially working' - and indeed, it isn't clearly defined - maybe we should just drop it as a general confirmation, and limit it to whatever problems arose. In that case, if it works it would be like a "yes, except..." and if it doesn't, it could be a "no, but...". thus, if it boots and gets you to the desktop, but the sound doesn't work because you didn't install the drivers, it would be a 'working', and one could fill in the rest in the comments.
A boot on the first but not the second stage, for instance, would be a 'not working', and you could mention it went and worked up until the first boot stage.
Black_Fox wrote:I don't have any HW at hand now, so pardon my intrusion: How about "working" means "same as when ran in VM", "partially working" means "at least boots", while non-working is even worse than that?
No, it's specifically meant for HW testing. And as shown with my own regression-testing, there are bugs/regressions that are only noticeable with real HW. Of course, nothing stops you from making a wikipage specifically catered to VM testing... though... basically that would be the ordinary testing that is done (majority uses VM, after all). The majority of regression testing IS done with VM, and testing a build of ROS in the same VM version, would be the same for everyone; that's exactly the strength ANd the weakness of VM-testing. So it would only boil down to who's the first to test, and all the rest could only confirm it.
But, well, anyway...as said, the wiki is open for anyone. But the page on https://www.reactos.org/wiki/PC_ROS_Rigs
*IS* specifically meant for real hardware testing, not VM.
Which isn't saying that VM testing doesn't need to be done anymore (I use Virtualbox/putty myself), it's just that the main purpose of that wikipage *is* about HW-testing.