lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Removing strong naming from all future versions
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:49:47 GMT
+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