{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mgravell/protobuf-net/issues/201","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mgravell/protobuf-net","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mgravell/protobuf-net/issues/201/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mgravell/protobuf-net/issues/201/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mgravell/protobuf-net/issues/201/events","html_url":"https://github.com/mgravell/protobuf-net/issues/201","id":196430744,"number":201,"title":"Changing AssemblyVersion to 2.0.0.0?","user":{"login":"KlausLinzner","id":13362720,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/13362720?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner","html_url":"https://github.com/KlausLinzner","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2016-12-19T14:46:26Z","updated_at":"2016-12-19T22:53:01Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I found no clear documentation on how you're versioning the assemblies but I assume it's some sort of semantic versioning - please correct me if I'm wrong.\r\n\r\nCould you change the AssemblyVersion from \"2.1.0.0\" (which is already a huge step ahead compared to prior) to \"2.0.0.0\"? Do you see any downsides on this?\r\nAs far as I know the AssemblyFileVersion and AssemblyInformationalVersion can stay the same (\"2.1.0\" or even \"2.1.0.build\"); \r\n\r\nThis would allow easier updates and less need for assembly redirects and/or synchronization of updates."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mgravell/protobuf-net/issues/comments/268102379","html_url":"https://github.com/mgravell/protobuf-net/issues/201#issuecomment-268102379","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mgravell/protobuf-net/issues/201","id":268102379,"user":{"login":"KlausLinzner","id":13362720,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/13362720?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner","html_url":"https://github.com/KlausLinzner","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/KlausLinzner/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-12-19T22:53:01Z","updated_at":"2016-12-19T22:53:01Z","body":"Yes - you can pretty much count on it that versioning scheme and strong naming raises more opinions than people - sorry I'm one of those.\r\n\r\nFrom what I've seen, with the 2.1 nuget package you changed it a bit already and IMO improved things a lot: When you ship a bugfix to version 2.1 and publish it as 2.1.692 it can be hot fixed without the need of recompile or assembly redirects.\r\nOn the other hand - when you implement new features and make bugfixes you'd currently update the version to 2.2; This update would require a recompile or assembly redirects. \r\n\r\nYou are completely right that assembly redirects are not that much of an issue any more in (rather high volatile) nuget environments. But when shipping applications to industrial sites the required support timeframe can range to many years - and the easier and less error prone update and hotfix scenarios are the better.\r\n\r\nExample:\r\nI ship library AwesomeLib in version 3.3 that requires protobuf-net in version 2.1. \r\nThis libray is used by AwesomeService that uses protobuf-net itself as well;\r\nBoth are shipped to Customer site X and go to production.\r\n\r\nA year goes by, AwesomeLib is already at version 3.5 and upgraded to protobuf-net in version 2.2. \r\nNow a bug report comes in from site X - a bug that was already fixed in 3.5;\r\nInstead of being able to apply the hotfix (stop the service, copy the AwesomeLib and its dependencies, start the service) assembly redirects need to be made as well. \r\nAn additional, manual step that is error prone and can induce further bugs, but that doesn't provide any benefits (or at least: none that I'm aware of).\r\n\r\nOf course - those are just my problems, induced by a not that common usage scenario. Nevertheless - I'd really appreciate if you could think about it and maybe reconsider.\r\n\r\nBest regards"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"KlausLinzner"}}