+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 >>
