Nuget 1.0.0 contains references to non-generic ISubscriber

[akarnokd]

After updating Reactive4.NET to 1.0.0 release, a lot of my IProcessors and IPublishers won't compile because they don't implement the non generic ISubscriber.OnNext(object).

This is what I get from show declaration on IProcessor:

namespace Reactive.Streams
{
    public interface IProcessor<in T1, out T2> : IProcessor, ISubscriber, IPublisher, ISubscriber<T1>, IPublisher<T2>
    {
    }
}

[marcpiechura]

This is the unlisted old version, I'm currently trying to replace this one. I'll let you know when it's done.

[akarnokd]

Thanks, I didn't know you can overwrite an old release with the same version on NuGet.

[marcpiechura]

Looks like you can't, we thought this could work but seems to be a octopus only functionality... I have contacted the nuget support team, so it will probably take a few more days before we can proceed with the release.

[akarnokd]

Are you against releasing as RC2 for now but marked as normal release?

[marcpiechura]

That would only move the problem in the feature, so if it's not possible I would say we release 1.0.2 which would be the next free version. 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 are already unlisted on nuget ... I could upload the packages if you want to use them

[akarnokd]

Let's wait what the support team says or does.

[marcpiechura]

So I got a response from the Nuget team, they don't allow overrides of existing packages...

The good thing is that we only released the interfaces as stable, so what we could do is Release

• Reactive.Streams as 1.0.2
• Reactive.Streams.TCK as 1.0.0 with a dependency to 1.0.2

Or release another RC but don't mark it as beta, but at some point we need to pump the version of Reactove.Streams to 1.0.2.

[viktorklang]

Not happy about this situation TBH.

It's not the end of the world but the botched releases ought to be purged, or at the very least be made unusable. Another option would be to see if they are OK with purging and recreating the org--which would have a similar effect. I doubt it tho.

Mismatching the version numbers for TCK and interfaces is a no-go for me.

-- Cheers, √

On Apr 7, 2017 8:33 AM, "Marc Piechura" notifications@github.com wrote:

So I got a response from the Nuget team, they don't allow overrides of existing packages...

The good thing is that we only released the interfaces as stable, so what we could do is Release

• Reactive.Streams as 1.0.2
• Reactive.Streams.TCK as 1.0.0 with a dependency to 1.0.2

Or release another RC but don't mark it as beta, but at some point we need to pump the version of Reactove.Streams to 1.0.2.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-dotnet/issues/39#issuecomment-292453544, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAqd9iFB940oAfZ42fdSkcNDA4lmcMSks5rtdjLgaJpZM4M0w4v .

[marcpiechura]

The only thing we can do is to unlist versions, what we did already, so you don't find them if you search for Reactive.Streams but you're still able to install this versions using the exact version number.

The org isn't related to the packages at all, currently Chris and I are the owners because we don't have a reactive streams nuget accout. But that doesn't matter since the packages are unique by semselfs regardless which accounts owns them, so we can't simply release another Reactive.Streams package from a potential org account, we can only transfer ownership.

[akarnokd]

At least RC2 non-beta would allow others to start supporting .NETStandard. Would it be an option to have "1.0" or "1.0.0.0" as the version number and then the next release could be "1.0.2"?

[viktorklang]

I don't know how .NET artifact resolution works or if it supports version ranges etc. Is the current interfaces bincompat with the published one or not?

-- Cheers, √

On Apr 7, 2017 9:33 AM, "David Karnok" notifications@github.com wrote:

At least RC2 non-beta would allow others to start supporting .NETStandard. Would it be an option to have "1.0" or "1.0.0.0" as the version number and then the next release could be "1.0.2"?

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-dotnet/issues/39#issuecomment-292463914, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAqdxoUa7xxKHJJ-RYu6beULC8M5w-bks5rtebigaJpZM4M0w4v .

[marcpiechura]

@akarnokd unfortenetly "1.0" doesn't work.

@viktorklang The current ones are binacompat against RC1 but not against 1.0.0

Imho a stable RC2 looks even more confusing. What would be the problem with simply bumping both versions to 1.0.2 ? It would be a clean cut and it's not that uncommon in the nuget world that a library needs to skip a version due to a accidental releases.

[viktorklang]

@Silv3rcircl3 The difference is that 1.0.2 wouldn't be bincompat with 1.0.0 or 1.0.1

[akarnokd]

I'm fine with 1.0.2. I guess the 1.0.0 release was a mistake as well, now unlisted, so doesn't matter if what's now in the repo is compatible with 1.0.0.

[viktorklang]

We could always release 1.O.O ;-)

But yeah, number of people impacted by the change (releasing 1.0.2) would be very few.

[marcpiechura]

@viktorklang so you prefer 2.0.0 ? ;-)

[marcpiechura]

So I assume all are fine with 1.0.2 and I'll bump the version and push it to nuget in an hour or so.

[viktorklang]

There doesn't seem to be any better options available.

-- Cheers, √

On Apr 7, 2017 9:30 PM, "Marc Piechura" notifications@github.com wrote:

So I assume all are fine with 1.0.2 and I'll bump the version and push it to nuget in an hour or so.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-dotnet/issues/39#issuecomment-292630610, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAqdyIWeRHbtbUEX_by_DuVADPP2S3Pks5rto62gaJpZM4M0w4v .

[akarnokd]

:+1: