> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed only because it's mostly done and > just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll hopefully have time to take care > of that this weekend.
How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick search for 'public * Get*()' Most of them looked to be actual methods - perhaps a few to replace > -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important, but there's no way we can get > this done quickly. The current state of this issue is that all of the > names of public members are now compliant. There are a few things that > aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those related to the FieldCache) and > some conflicts with *protected or internal* fields (some with public > members). Opinions on this one will be appreciated the most. My opinion > is that we should draw a line on the amount of CLS compliance to have in > this release, and push the rest into 3.5. I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues. the sbyte stuff will run into trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into this issue when trying to do this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get rid of the easier stuff (internal/protected stuff). I would not try getting rid of sbyte or volatile for thile release. It's going to take some serious consideration to get rid of those > -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add this code (not present in java) to > the core library? I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community desire for this in 3.5. > -- Improvement 456 - This is related to builds being output in Apache's > release format. Do we want to do this for this release? > I looked into this last weekend - I'm terrible with Nant, so I didn't get anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't think I'll figure it out. If Michael has some time to maybe make the adjustment, he knows these scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it, but I don't call this a show stopper - either we have it or we don't when the rest is done. ~P
