+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 <[email protected]
wrote:
+1
On Apr 30, 2014, at 6:38 PM, "Troy Howard" <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Prescott Nasser <[email protected]
wrote:
+1 since we will make both available
-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Irwin" <[email protected]>
Sent: 4/29/2014 7:06 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]
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 <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]>
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: [email protected]
Cell: 863-698-9294
