Hello Andrew, Thanks for spotting/fixing this!
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 00:19 -0700, Andrew Skiba wrote: > Hello Sebastien. > > I ran mono-api-check on both 1.1 and 2.0 profile, and it did not see any > difference after I removed IEnumerable. So I will commit this patch and > check class statuses of 1.1 and 2.0 in a few days. > > > > > > * X509CertificateCollection.patch - remove unnecessary overload > > > > > > > > If this doesn't cause any error with the class library > > status pages > > > > then remove (don't comment) it. The comment itself can be > > put in the > > > > ChangeLog. > > > > > > According to MSDN X509CertificateCollection does not implement > > > IEnumerable privately. > > > > You're right. Anyway CollectionBase already implements > > IEnumerable. Not sure why it was put there (it's been there > > since the first commit in 2002). > > > > > Actually, that means that the patch should look like in the new > > > attachment. > > > > > > What do you mean by class library status pages? > > > > The "old corcompare" which is available online from > > http://www.mono-project.com/Class_Status > > > > You should check both 1.x and 2.0 profiles. > > > > > I could run make > > > run-test after this patch applied, and it gave same number > > of errors > > > before and after the patch. Is that enough? > > > > No. It will spot functionality regressions but it won't spot > > errors in API definitions. I don't see how/why this could > > break but it's safer to always check the pages after an API > > change (either manually on your own computer or on the public > > pages a while after the check-in). > > > > -- > > Sebastien Pouliot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Blog: http://pages.infinit.net/ctech/ > > > > _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list