lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Removing strong naming from all future versions
Date Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:30:33 GMT
+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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message