[Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

[Sebastien Pouliot]

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  <sebastien at ximian.com>
> > Blog: http://pages.infinit.net/ctech/
> > 
> >