Strong Named Assemblies

[Tanner Watson]

Any word on when/if RestSharp will start to be strongly named? Right
now I'm just signing them myself, which is fine, I'm just curious.

[Zidad]

Hi Tanner,

Just out of curiosity, what's the reason to apply a strong name? Does
it need to be added to the GAC?

The problem with distributing a private key with an open source
project is that it can raise the assumption (is that actual English?)
the code is digitally signed by a trusted party, but really isn't as
everyone can just download the key and create modified versions of
assemblies and pretend to be 'legit'.

If you distribute a project that includes assemblies that need to be
signed, I would go with signing all self-built assemblies with my own
private key, otherwise it really defeats the purpose of signing an
assembly.

But not everyone agrees, some projects just publish their private
keys, like Jon Skeet mentions here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/396143/net-opensource-projects-and-strong-named-assemblies

Does that answer your question?

-Wiebe

[John Sheehan]

No plans to sign it. After all the issues with JSON.NET being signed and how it plays with NuGet, it's not something I want to do.

[Ivan Gavryliuk]

Could you at least publish signed and unsigned version? I'm not aware of those issues, what are they?

[Andrew Young]

Please read: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/restsharp/yjGCtOnEYHk/XbKZi0yjN8cJ