+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 >
