wine users - Jul 2011 - Wine Conformance Test on Windows 9x, how to report?

I've run two conformance test binary (winetest-latest and
winetest-8cbb8cc38d01) on Microsoft Windows Me 4.90.3000,
both warned that Win9x was not supported, and I wouldn't be able to submit
results.

The lastest one said that there were about 67 tests failed (some wscript and msi
error dialog appeared during the test)
and it also said that there might be some problem with my configuration.
[this one got 6451 line of "Test failed"]

'8cbb8cc38d01' didn't say anything (and there was some regedit error
dialog while testing).
[this one got 788 line of "Test failed"]

I've checked test.winehq.org and couldn't find any Win9x entry,
both Wine wiki and developer guide topic on Conformance Test didn't say
anything about what to do after testing, or how to report the results.


So what should I do next?

nachanon wrote:
> I've run two conformance test binary (winetest-latest and
winetest-8cbb8cc38d01) on Microsoft Windows Me 4.90.3000,
> both warned that Win9x was not supported, and I wouldn't be able to
submit results.
> 
> So what should I do next?
Nothing. Wine conformance tests no longer made to work on Win9x (which Win ME
is). All errors you see on those platforms won't be fixed.

The tests are just a means to an end... do you have a real app that used
to work, but doesn't anymore?

jjmckenzie wrote:
> However, if fixing Windows9x/ME BREAKS Windows NT or later 
> functionality, you may be at a loss for now.
It likely that the case where Wine's fix of Win9x line breaks WinNT line,
occured when particular application that used to work on Win9x, breaks on WinXP
(or NT).

So I just need to specify in the report that the application breaks the same way
on WinXP or not,
so they will be able to keep that fixed behaviour out of NT/XP line, then make
them available only when
Win95/98/Me was selected in Winecfg?

And if the app is working perfectly on WinXP without any compatibility mode
(which most do worked),
there's likely one less thing to worry, right?, because it might be the
correct behaviour on WinXP/NT too.

Okay, I'd better off to do it now.
Thanks, everyone.