On Thu Aug 21 20:40:08 2025 +0000, Esme Povirk wrote:
> That would be much simpler. I'm guessing this wasn't done so that
> alternative configurations could be stored in a separate file.
Alternative configurations could be stored in named keys in the registry though. This might be an easier UI, since you could select them with a combo box.
--
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/8778#note_113532
On Thu Aug 21 20:05:30 2025 +0000, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> I'd suggest to store settings in the registry instead.
That would be much simpler. I'm guessing this wasn't done so that alternative configurations could be stored in a separate file.
--
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/8778#note_113531
On Thu Aug 21 19:55:55 2025 +0000, Esme Povirk wrote:
> Using a human-readable format makes sense to me. I think you're right -
> as long as there aren't too many settings, the runtime cost is probably OK.
> > Would it be better to store all the settings in memory and save them
> to a file once the scan starts or the window is closed?
> I think this should be decided based on what users are most likely to
> expect (or want, as long as we can communicate it clearly). Personally,
> if there is a Cancel button, I expect clicking it, or manually closing
> the window, to discard any changes I've made (unless I've explicitly
> saved them somehow).
> One could change the Cancel button to Close, and then saving settings
> immediately might make more sense, but I'm not sure how many people
> would pick up on that. I would rather be able to Cancel, but that's just
> a personal preference.
I'd suggest to store settings in the registry instead.
--
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/8778#note_113530