Fix Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyModel AssemblyVersionInPackageVersion #36301
Conversation
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @ViktorHofer |
| "AssemblyVersionInPackageVersion": { | ||
| "3.1.4.0": "5.0.0", | ||
| "3.1.3.0": "3.1.3", | ||
| "3.1.4.0": "3.1.4", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
dont we increment the last part in the servicing releases ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe but this is just reacting to a package serviced in release/3.1 which was not yet part of libraries so may use different versioning
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I’m not sure I understand the question.
This library was not part of corefx. This is the first release it is being built using the “corefx/libraries” packaging infrastructure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
He is saying that usually in servicing we only increment the last part of the assembly version, so package 3.1.4 should have had assembly version 3.1.3.1 instead of 3.1.4.0, but that wasn’t a decision made on this PR, this is just reacting to what already happened in servicing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes i should have been more clearer, i meant to ask if the versioning scheme used here is on purpose or just a mistake in packaging (nothing wrong with this pr)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Anipik keep in mind that at least in release/3.1 this package is being built on a different repo (coresetup) which means that they were using a slightly different infrastructure and were possibly not following the same versioning guidelines we do in corefx. Now we have moved it to runtime it should start following conventions starting from 5.0 release
|
Can we merge this to unblock PRs? |
Nothing should be blocked on this. My previous change fixed those. #36285 This is just a follow up to that. |
|
Ah, ok, then we probably need to close and re-open some PRs to pick up your previous change. Thanks. |
|
As @eerhardt suggests PRs shouldn’t be block by this, that said I’ll go ahead and merge as we don’t have anything else to address here |
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
5 participants
No description provided.