[MonoDevelop] Version confusion

[Matt Calder]

Hi,

I'm not sure if this question was seen to be silly or people are just
busy. But I went ahead and installed the 2.5.93 branch hoping it would
fix the problem I was having with the 2.8 (or is it 2.7?) version.
Unfortunately, it did not. So I'll just mention it here. Both of these
newer versions (I had been on one of the 2.4 branches, sorry don't
know which) seem to have issues in the debugger. The hover no longer
reliably brings up the object inspection window. I guess the problem
could me in nunit or in mono:

$ mono --version
Mono JIT compiler version 2.11 ((no/7917753 Wed Mar 30 15:47:09 EDT 2011)
Copyright (C) 2002-2011 Novell, Inc and Contributors. www.mono-project.com
	TLS:           __thread
	SIGSEGV:       altstack
	Notifications: epoll
	Architecture:  amd64
	Disabled:      none
	Misc:          softdebug
	LLVM:          yes(2.8svn-mono)
	GC:            Included Boehm (with typed GC and Parallel Mark)

but it worked prior to the new monodevelop (2.5.93) install. I
probably will rollback to an earlier version and will post a reply
about where the break began.

If anyone understands the version naming conventions, and which
versions 2.5.x, 2.6, 2.7, or 2.8 are most current I'd appreciate a
reply here, thanks.

Matt

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Matt Calder <mvcalder at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently installed MD from the source on github, branch "master".
> When I run Help-About I see "Version 2.8 Alpha 1 (2.7)". The recent
> announcement was that "The MonoDevelop team is proud to announce the
> release of MonoDevelop 2.6
> Release Candidate 1 (2.5.93).". I see that on github there is a branch
> 2.5.93, and a branch 2.6.
>
> My questions are: between the branches "master", "2.5.93", and "2.6"
> what are the main differences, and which is to be preferred (and why)?
> And additionally, if someone could give some background on the
> plethora of version numbers that seem to be floating about (2.5.x,
> 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8), it would be very helpful.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>