http://go-mono.com/status talks about Mono 3.5, it's just to clearify that implements FX 3.5 but it means Mono 2.x currently available?
At 12.34 21/01/2009, Kornél Pál wrote: >Hi, > >Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 2 finally was released as a >standalone update: >http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5B2C0358-915B-4EB5-9B1D-10E506DA9D0F&displaylang=en > >As a result the following version should be used for comparison: >1.1 SP1 >2.0 SP2 >3.5 SP1 > >Updating to 2.0 SP2 would also render the "but not for detecting if >there are extra APIs (we will have them, as we are now tracking 3.5)" >clause obsolete. > >Also note that the actual status pages at http://go-mono.com/status are >empty for me using Internet Explorer but work with Firefox. > >Kornél > >Atsushi Eno wrote: > > They are now at http://go-mono.com/status > > > > Atsushi Eno > > > > Leszek Ciesielski wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Miguel de > Icaza <mig...@novell.com> wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>>> Perhaps some members of the Mono team use > gui-compare, but I think end-users > >>>> / third-party developers appreciate an easy way to consult the API > >>>> compatibility level of certain types/members. > >>>> > >>>> The only painful part of the online class > status pages (that I see) is that > >>>> the masterinfo files are not automatically updated (after changes to > >>>> mono-api-info). This could be scheduled as part of the win32 buildbot > >>>> though. > >>> Well, the masterinfo files are really static. Every time there is a > >>> new release, someone goes scavenging for all the files, and runs > >>> mono-api-info on the given assemblies and then we version the result. > >>> > >>> The actual masterinfos that we have are all listed in > >>> mono-tools/gui-compare/InfoManager.cs. Just grep for "Uri" there. > >>> > >>> So its merely an issue of fixing the build, and running more > >>> mono-api-diffs and generate more web pages for each of the profiles we > >>> want to compare. I think those should be: > >>> > >>> 1.1 > >>> 2.0 > >>> 3.5 SP1 > >>> > >>> On a side note: the generation of the masterinfo files is less that > >>> stellar. We have used a mix of the Reflection-based tools, and the > >>> Cecil tools to extract the information, and they are *slightly* > >>> different. > >>> > >>> In the last batch (done for 3.5SP1) I used the Cecil tools for half the > >>> assemblies (those that lived under Windows/) and reflection ones for the > >>> ones that live under "Reference Assemblies" because the Cecil ones > >>> required an assembly resolver that did not work. > >>> > >>> So the result is mixed. > >>> > >>>> Does gui-compare use the same "masterinfo" input files (for .NET) as > >>>> corcompare? > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>>> Gert > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: mono-devel-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com > >>>> [mailto:mono-devel-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Miguel de > >>>> Icaza > >>>> Sent: zondag 21 september 2008 19:32 > >>>> To: Gert Driesen > >>>> Cc: 'mono-devel-list' > >>>> Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] Class status pages are empty > >>>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>>> What was the reason for discontinuing the (online) class status pages? > >>>> We never really discontinued it, at least in my case, I stopped caring. > >>>> > >>>> They were just difficult to maintain, and doing quick changes were not > >>>> reflected quickly (we had to wait a few hours for either the process to > >>>> run, or setup a local system which was never well documented and was > >>>> messy). > >>>> > >>>> Chris Toshok wrote gui-compare, which was very useful to quickly iterate > >>>> over an API and have since then barely used the Web UI. I am not sure > >>>> if others have done it, but I think some of us just stopped using it. > >>>> > >>>> I agree that a web version has a lot of value, and would love to keep it > >>>> around, but in its current form its painful to deal with. The other > >>>> bit that is important to point out is that it has not been upgraded to > >>>> deal with the various new profiles, that is something that would have to > >>>> be done as well. > >>>> > >> Sorry for resurrecting an old discussion, but a lot of pages contain > >> links to the Mono Class Status page. Which - if if understood this > >> discussion - is no longer maintained. Could someone put a warning > >> there that the page no longer works, and what should be used instead? > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Mono-devel-list mailing list > >> 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 > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list > > >_______________________________________________ >Mono-devel-list mailing list >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 http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list