Template talk:Testing/entry: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (moved Template talk:Test Entry to Template talk:Testing/entry: moving templates to subpages under one title) |
(Purged outdated commentary (testers are now linked to user pages if they exist), Added new section regarding testing categories) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== | == Testing Categories == | ||
I'd like to be able to generate "Tested On" categories based on the testing template. I recently tested this out with the OS entries, which, with a little clean up, works out fairly well. Such won't work as well with the current CPU/GPU entries, as there is too much variety within them. Even within the OS's there's some mess, mostly related to the capture of CPU architecture details. In any case I'd like to propose some template revisions to make the generation of more useful "Tested On" categories possible. | |||
*'''OS''': I'd like to break this out into separate OS and CPU Architecture fields. Thus far it's presumed that x64 users are using x64 builds but that may not be the case. Once the CPU Architecture of Dolphin is captured separately, the architecture of the underlying OS isn't critical and could be omitted (i.e. it may be interesting that someone's running a x86 build on a x64 OS, but likely irrelevant). | |||
*'''CPU''': I'd like to break this out into 2-3 fields: CPU Vendor, CPU Model, CPU Speed. Model may still be too varied for useful categories (but perhaps not), but we'll at least be able to address the Vendor level. I don't think the CPU MHz speed indicators are really of any use, but folks seem to love to provide them. Based on such I'm presuming a separate field could at least keep it separated. | |||
*'''GPU''': Similar to CPU, I'd like to break this out into 2-3 fields: GPU Vendor, GPU Model, GPU Details. Same comments as above, though we tend to see both speed and memory indicators for GPUs, hence the Details vs Speed. | |||
Revision as of 03:31, 22 August 2011
Testing Categories
I'd like to be able to generate "Tested On" categories based on the testing template. I recently tested this out with the OS entries, which, with a little clean up, works out fairly well. Such won't work as well with the current CPU/GPU entries, as there is too much variety within them. Even within the OS's there's some mess, mostly related to the capture of CPU architecture details. In any case I'd like to propose some template revisions to make the generation of more useful "Tested On" categories possible.
- OS: I'd like to break this out into separate OS and CPU Architecture fields. Thus far it's presumed that x64 users are using x64 builds but that may not be the case. Once the CPU Architecture of Dolphin is captured separately, the architecture of the underlying OS isn't critical and could be omitted (i.e. it may be interesting that someone's running a x86 build on a x64 OS, but likely irrelevant).
- CPU: I'd like to break this out into 2-3 fields: CPU Vendor, CPU Model, CPU Speed. Model may still be too varied for useful categories (but perhaps not), but we'll at least be able to address the Vendor level. I don't think the CPU MHz speed indicators are really of any use, but folks seem to love to provide them. Based on such I'm presuming a separate field could at least keep it separated.
- GPU: Similar to CPU, I'd like to break this out into 2-3 fields: GPU Vendor, GPU Model, GPU Details. Same comments as above, though we tend to see both speed and memory indicators for GPUs, hence the Details vs Speed.