lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Vesse <rve...@dotnetrdf.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Removing strong naming from all future versions
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:29:30 GMT
-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/>





Mime
View raw message