Vote concluded, we will remove strong naming this week. --
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 10:20 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < >> >> [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 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> > >> > >
