[Mono-dev] Arguing for reconsideration of WONTFIX status of 425512
Miguel De Icaza
miguel at novell.com
Thu Feb 12 12:26:35 EST 2009
> It depends on what the mono team sees as the goal of mono.
> If it is to provide a nice programming environment for linux
> to make linux applications, then no reason to change.
> If it also is to make it easy for .net applications to run on linux,
> to have windows .net developers try mono, and adopt mono as one of
> then it would make sense to cahnge.
It is a bit of both. We have made concessions in the past for this
sort of thing, and I do not see why this would be any different.
Now, this is a horrid hack that nobody should be using. And I am
surprised about the kind of projects using this hack, as it seems that
them of all people would have written some robust features into it to
future proof the code against changes in the framework, into different
editions of the framework (Mono, CF, XNA, Micro) and would not depend
on this sort of hacks.
I have not researched this problem in particular, and I do not know
what negative impact it might have on Mono so I do not have a strong
position against changing it, but I do not know enough about it to
just OK the change.
It seems to me that talking to upstream developers and get them to
provide a more robust implementation from the get-go would be a much
better outcome. Have them probe for .NET version, fall back to Mono
and if none of those are available, gracefully degrade the
> They are all opensource, and I have submitted patches (except for
> upcomig). The reason I bring this up is not to make my life easier.
> I can
> make all these tools work for me and move on. I bring it up because I
> feel mono is a really great project, and I would love to make it
> work more
> out of the box, even for programs that sometimes cross the line of
> they "are allowed" to be doing.
I agree, it is a worthy goal, and we are willing to make some changes,
even something as gross as this. I just need more information myself.
> Anyway, I think most arguments for and against have been made, and
> this point the mono team should just do what it
> feels is right.
I did not get the feeling (or maybe it is part of my lost email) that
I have heard the "againsts" yet.
More information about the Mono-devel-list