lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Removing strong naming from all future versions
Date Thu, 01 May 2014 19:20:13 GMT
Michael, this is a majority vote, and this is what I was implying, sorry if
it was understood differently. Also, vetoing isn't on by default on all
votes, like you can read in the link you provided.

Either way, you haven't provided your vote.

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:46 PM, michael herndon <mherndon@michaelherndon.com
> wrote:

> Its probably worth reiterating that with this vote:
>
> Signed binaries are NOT going away.
>
>   - They are just reverting back to the previous manual download
> distribution method.
>   - Nothing prevents a developer from creating their own nuget feed with
> the signed binaries using something like nuget.server or myget.org.
>
> On a side note, statements like, "Michael and Simon's votes are still
> absent but that won't matter anyway.", should be avoided in the future.
>
> The above statement could be misconstrued as:
>
> a) Voting doesn't matter and thus a person's opinion or voice doesn't
> matter. Part of purpose of voting is to elicit feedback and
> build consensus with the community because the community matters. The other
> purpose is conflict resolution.
>
> b) That the named parties are the only missing committer votes. There are
> other members not listed that have not voted.
>
> b) That people are being singled out. Calling out people rather than just
> focusing on the issue is bad form. It can make things seem personal or
> meant for public shaming even when the intent was anything but that.
>
> c) Majority rules applies to this vote when it does not.  A single binding
> negative one vote effectively vetoes a code modification vote / proposal
> like this one.  https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> -M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Simon Svensson <sisve@devhost.se> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > (I'll admit that I had no idea that I had any voting power...)
> >
> >
> > On 01/05/14 14:33, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> >
> >> Ok so we have 4 binding votes in favor to this move (counting Paul as
> well
> >> because of his recent contributions), 1 non-binding in favor, and 2
> >> non-binding against it.
> >>
> >> Michael and Simon's votes are still absent but that won't matter anyway.
> >>
> >> I haven't announced a deadline initially so I'll be setting one now.
> Vote
> >> terminates May 2nd 2PM GMT, just a bit over 24h from now.
> >>
> >> We will then move to making the mentioned changes.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> >> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> >> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> >> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Nicholas Paldino <
> >> casperOne@caspershouse.com
> >>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> +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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message