I feel like it's worthwhile to mention that Strong Naming the assembly is how an assembly gets it's identity.
Take for example the following assemblies: -- Lucene.Net version 3.0.0.0 -- Lucene.Net version 3.0.3.0 -- Lucene.Net version 4.0.0.0 If I added a reference to Lucene.Net 4.0 to my application, ANY of those assemblies would match, as far as the runtime is concerned if the assemblies are unsigned. The strong name of an assembly is the _combination_ of the simple text name, version, culture and public key, not simply the public key. Without strong naming, you do NOT get real assembly versioning. See here for a reference: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/51ket42z(v=vs.110).aspx >> The runtime distinguishes between regular and strong-named assemblies for the purposes of versioning. Version checking only occurs with strong-named assemblies. I would prefer to leave the strong-named option in nuget, and allow users to manually download an unsigned binary, if they choose to. However, the vote is over and already decided, so it's probably a moot point. On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > >
