Hello,
I'm almost done
> porting [1] to [2] so we can replace it in [3] ;) )
>
This is music to my ears!
> [1] http://www.mono-project.com/Compiling_Mono_From_SVN
> [2] http://www.mono-project.com/Compiling_Mono_From_Git
> [3] http://www.mono-project.com/Compiling
>
Ok fair enough, I'll implement your suggestions.
You know, it's not that I don't like to document stuff (I'm almost done
porting [1] to [2] so we can replace it in [3] ;) )
Regards,
Andrés
[1] http://www.mono-project.com/Compiling_Mono_From_SVN
[2] http://www.mono-project.com/Compiling
Hello,
I thought about this, but it would be a bit weird to use a tool called
> "mono-api-info" if you don't want the API but the ABI. This is why I
> thought it would be more intuitive this way.
>
Minor issue.
> It goes against the "If it is not documented, it does not exist" rule.
>
> Then mon
Hey Miguel, sorry for the small delay to reply:
El 10/08/10 21:41, Miguel de Icaza escribió:
> In your recent commit, you added a new command to mcs/tools/corcompare,
> the mono-abi-info tool. I do not know what this tool does, and I do
> not know why we could not just have used mono-api-info wi
In your recent commit, you added a new command to mcs/tools/corcompare,
the mono-abi-info tool. I do not know what this tool does, and I do
not know why we could not just have used mono-api-info with a new flag
--abi instead of installing another executable.
It goes against the "If it is not doc
