lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicholas Paldino <casper...@caspershouse.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Removing strong naming from all future versions
Date Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:39:50 GMT
+1

> On Apr 30, 2014, at 6:38 PM, "Troy Howard" <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> +1 since we will make both available
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Paul Irwin" <pirwin@feature23.com>
>> Sent: ‎4/‎29/‎2014 7:06 AM
>> To: "dev@lucenenet.apache.org" <dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Removing strong naming from all future versions
>> 
>> +1 since an alternative signed version would be available as a download.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Here is my +1
>>> 
>>> All reasoning are here:
>>> http://code972.com/blog/2014/04/68-ditching-strong-naming-for-lucene-net
>>> 
>>> We will publish both signed and non-signed. If someone can't change their
>>> process for making their project not sign, they are most likely not using
>>> nuget anyway. May be a bit harsh but that's mostly true.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Itamar Syn-Hershko
>>> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
>>> Freelance Developer & Consultant
>>> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> -1
>>>> 
>>>> I am strongly in favour of keeping strong naming for previously
>> mentioned
>>>> reasons, I believe removing the signing will cause issues throughout
>> the
>>>> wider ecosystem of developers who rely on Lucene.Net
>>>> 
>>>> Counter-proposal:
>>>> 
>>>> Publish both signed and unsigned packages and leave it up to users to
>>>> decide which to use, the main package IDs should continue to be signed
>>> and
>>>> new package IDs should be created for the unsigned variants
>>>> 
>>>> Rob
>>>> 
>>>>> On 29/04/2014 03:52, "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <itamar@code972.com>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is a vote for removing strong naming from Lucene.NET effective
>>>>> immediately, affecting all future versions including the planned v3
>>> bugfix
>>>>> release and obviously the v4 branch, arguments being:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. This is a headache to manage, given dependencies may or may not be
>>>>> signed and as long as we are signed we can't use them without signing
>>> them
>>>>> first. At this point in time it's a blocker for us from releasing the
>> v3
>>>>> bugfix version.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Strong naming is pretty much pointless as it is anyway, especially
>>>>> since
>>>>> we are OSS and our key is public anyway.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All main distribution channels (nuget, binary downloads) will not be
>>>>> signed, but we will provide a download link with a signed version for
>>>>> people who need a signed. This is to address needs coming from people
>>> who
>>>>> already have signed their projects.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We will also publish a Wiki page describing this move in detail, with
>>> the
>>>>> hopes people will remove signing from their projects instead of using
>>> the
>>>>> signed version.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let's make the world a better place.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Itamar Syn-Hershko
>>>>> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
>>>>> Freelance Developer & Consultant
>>>>> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Paul Irwin
>> Lead Software Engineer
>> feature[23]
>> 
>> Email: pirwin@feature23.com
>> Cell: 863-698-9294
>> 

Mime
View raw message