Make assembly strong again #471
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Forgot to say what year ;-) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
One can like Strong Name assemblies, and one can hate. There are pros and cons of both approaches, lets not discuss them.
Since there is still a demand for strong name assembly I'm going to adopt the same approach adopted by NHibernate. It is to fix assembly version patch and build numbers as 0, so the assembly version would be "Major.Minor.0.0".
This will reduce need for binding redirects and also it will ensure that you cannot bin-drop update FNH and have to recompile your application when there are binary breaking changes. But, people, please stop updating libraries by bin-dropping.
There should be no diamond dependency problem as FNH is a terminal package meaning that there are probably not so much other libraries that depend on FNH itself.
I have considered the other approach with having 2 packages. But there are more cons than pros it is trying to solve: it is harder to maintain 2 package (considering that there were no activity for almost 2 years) and it also fragments our ever-reducing user base.
I'm going to merge this PR on 30th of September if there is no much opposition.