Is everything from 4.0 on the correct side currently there? I have seen this cause confusion in the past for many thinking the version numbers somehow match up :)
On Friday, October 24, 2014, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@xamarin.com> wrote: > Ah, I see. > > Yeah, perhaps we will move to the 4.0 branding, just need to check with > folks around here what they think. > > For distros: nobody in the Linux world really ever cared about this. > > We kept these profiles with the idea that this was something that actually > mattered, and it turns out, it rarely did (in particular in Linux where > things are built from scratch) > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Martin Thwaites <monofo...@my2cents.co.uk > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','monofo...@my2cents.co.uk');>> wrote: > >> Hi Miguel, >> >> I'm referring to 3.9, 3.10.1, etc. i.e. the current version being >> 3.10.1. So I guess it should be considered the "3.x" series. >> >> I'm meaning that we shouldn't preclude there being a 3.11, or 3.12, if >> there is a critical bug. >> >> Also, do you have an answer to the distro question? >> >> Thanks, >> Martin >> >> On 24 October 2014 19:13, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@xamarin.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mig...@xamarin.com');>> wrote: >> >>> Hello Martin, >>> >>> There is no such thing as a "3.x.x series". It does not exist. It >>> never did. >>> >>> You must be confused. >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Martin Thwaites < >>> monofo...@my2cents.co.uk >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','monofo...@my2cents.co.uk');>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Miguel, >>>> >>>> I think my preference would be to have the 3.x.x series continue (as >>>> security fix only) with all the profiles, and essentially have it be a >>>> legacy branch. Then have the 4.x.x series by a .NET 4.5+ only code base. >>>> I think it should continue if people are willing to support it, but the >>>> contributors who don't want to have to support it (or don't have the time >>>> to implement hacks for it) don't have to. >>>> >>>> From a communication perspective it would be easier to get across >>>> saying that "From mono 4.0 onwards, we only support the 4.5 profile" rather >>>> than 3.11.x onwards as it's not as easy to remember which 3.x number it was >>>> when it stopped. A decision and a change like that does really feel >>>> "major" and therefore warrant the change. >>>> >>>> The other question I have is around the linux distros that ship mono as >>>> standard (I think Ubuntu does). Do you perceive this having an affect on >>>> them, i.e. they will never ship 4.0 as it doesn't cater for .NET 2.0 >>>> applications and there are some core pieces that rely on it? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> On 22 October 2014 22:18, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@xamarin.com >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mig...@xamarin.com');>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey, >>>>> >>>>> Mhm, that is a good idea. Will think about it. >>>>> >>>>> Right now we were just planning on calling the next one Mono 3.12. >>>>> But perhaps the time has come for a nice bump! >>>>> >>>>> Miguel >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Martin Thwaites < >>>>> monofo...@my2cents.co.uk >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','monofo...@my2cents.co.uk');>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Miguel, >>>>>> >>>>>> Would you be looking at calling this Mono 4.0? Not that it makes any >>>>>> difference really, it just seems there's been a lot of improvements in >>>>>> recently, and an announcement of a new version me give some renewed >>>>>> interest. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22 October 2014 21:10, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@xamarin.com >>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mig...@xamarin.com');>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey Alex, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is very repetitive work, so what I wanted to do was to write a >>>>>>> perl script to remove the *obvious* ifdefs. The tool would remove only >>>>>>> those that match the following criteria (more or less): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Remove toplevel #if NET_2_0 with the final #endif >>>>>>> - Only remove those that contain those preprocessor directives >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And then have a human do the more fine-tuned approach. There >>>>>>> are a couple more defines that I remember could be automated, but I >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> love to have this in the form of a script. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am afraid of applying a patch like that blindly, because there are >>>>>>> no exact guarantees of what happened without reviewing the whole file. >>>>>>> So >>>>>>> a script with the invariants would take a lot of my nervousness out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, when I did it once, I had a setup where I rebuilt the >>>>>>> assemblies and compared the output. This would ensure that removal of >>>>>>> ifdefs did not change the resulting binaries. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:04 PM, akoeplinger < >>>>>>> alex.koeplin...@outlook.com >>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alex.koeplin...@outlook.com');>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sounds like a good thing ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've got a branch in my fork where I removed the NET_2_0 ifdefs: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/akoeplinger/mono/compare/remove-net20-ifdefs, >>>>>>>> @kumpera >>>>>>>> told me a while ago that removing the 2.0 profile is on the horizon >>>>>>>> when I >>>>>>>> asked about why the ifdefs are still there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I refrained from making a PR so far because it is quite huge, do >>>>>>>> you think >>>>>>>> now would be a good time? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Alex >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>>> http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/Heads-up-Elimination-of-the-2-0-and-4-0-profiles-tp4664323p4664325.html >>>>>>>> Sent from the Mono - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Mono-devel-list mailing list >>>>>>>> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com >>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com');> >>>>>>>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Mono-devel-list mailing list >>>>>>> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com >>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com');> >>>>>>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Studying for the Turing test
_______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list