May I suggest that you dont increment the assembly version for revision increments (3.2.x). Instead, only change the FileVersion attribute.
That way, the assembly can be a drop-in replacement and you wont need either recompilation or assembly redirects. 2012/7/25 Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> > Yeah, I wonder whether its yet the case that most ppl are acquiring NH via > NuGet where the tooling now attempts to introduce AssemblyBindingRedirects > for you on the fly (?) > > What we'll experience (based on my past experience) is probably a flurry > of posts asking each nhcontrib project when it will be updated to support > 3.2.2 > > Its not been my experience that most people's first instinct is to try to > add their own redirect. I agree this is conceptually possible to address > this way, but I fear that requiring it/depending on it will increase > adoption friction for NH. > > -Steve B. > On Jul 25, 2012 5:39 PM, "Ramon Smits" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Well, increments in the revision number should not break compatibility >> and only be bugfixes. These can easily be redirected in the app.config is >> needed without needing other frameworks to be rebuild. >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Sorry -- hit SEND by accident there ;) What I was *trying* to say... >>> >>> If there are significant bug-fixes that we believe to be blockers for >>> adoption in 3.3.1 then I'd say its worth looking at a 3.3.2 release. >>> However, in the past this project hasn't (usually) seen more than a single >>> release after N.N.0 (e.g., an N.N.1 but only very rarely an N.N.2 >>> release). In general fewer, stable releases have been preferred over more >>> frequent releases. I don't know that this has been an actual point of past >>> discussion, but it seems to me that given the number of co-dependent >>> projects (nhcontrib, and beyond) its *generally* been preferable not to >>> "release early and often" because of the corresponding need to update the >>> rest of the 'ecosystem' that takes NH as a dependency. >>> >>> Did you have a specific one (or more) bug-fixes in mind that are >>> critical enough to warrant an earlier release prior to 4.0 (or even a >>> 3.4?) I've noticed activity around several issues re: the LINQ provider >>> (now resolved) that appear to be fixed -- was that what you had in mind to >>> get out there in an official release? >>> >>> >>> Steve Bohlen >>> [email protected] >>> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com >>> http://twitter.com/sbohlen >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Steve Bohlen >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com >>>> http://twitter.com/sbohlen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Moisés Gonçalves >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Isn’t it too early to generate another version?**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> *De:* [email protected] [mailto: >>>>> [email protected]] *Em nome de *Alexander I. >>>>> Zaytsev >>>>> *Enviada em:* terça-feira, 24 de julho de 2012 12:42 >>>>> *Para:* [email protected] >>>>> *Assunto:* [nhibernate-development] NH 3.3.2**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> Hello everyone.**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> There are some minor bug fixes and imporvements. I was thought that I >>>>> could prepare 3.3.2 release and then we could deliver it. **** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> What do you think?**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, Alex.**** >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ramon >> >>
