-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
OSOE-49: Enforce Windows newlines for C# files to avoid false positives with IDE0055 warning. #55
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With the current SDK, OCC-3: Fix linux-specific problems in Lombiq.Analyzers. by DAud-IcI · Pull Request #53 · Lombiq/.NET-Analyzers shouldn’t be needed, this is why I removed it under Removing now unneeded Microsoft.Net.Compilers.Toolset reference · Lombiq/.NET-Analyzers@52016af.
That wasn't my experience, that's why I have added it back. What do you mean by "current" exactly? |
>=6.0.202, see dotnet/sdk#23972 |
That explains it, I had "6.0.102" installed on my Linux desktop. But if we have a specific minimum version requirement within the same major version that really should be documented. |
I'd give us (me) a pass here, since it was a workaround for a .NET SDK bug they introduced with a patch version :D. |
Anyway, we shouldn't remove the fix at least until May 22, because 6.0.200's lifecycle is still active. |
In principle I agree, I'd just really dread to re-add this workaround for these 9 days and have to keep in mind to remove it and retest everything. |
Even after may 22, it's not like everyone will instantly and magically switch over to the latest SDK. Why are you so eager to break backwards compatibility? Does this fix have any serious drawbacks? |
Yeah, but we can still say we don't support older SDKs. This is a risky workaround because it makes us use the compiler from NuGet instead of the SDK, which is unexpected and discouraged in the package Readme too. It's a hack that we shouldn't keep until absolutely necessary, hence me also jumping on removing it the first time this was possible. |
I suppose we can say that. (I'm not happy about it tho.) Yet the main problem is that we didn't say anything, which confused the person I least want to see confused: myself. :D Instead of deleting the code, I'm going to comment it out and add some text indicating that SDK versions prior to 6.0.102 have to uncomment it. |
I'm sorry :(. Sure! prior to 202, though. |
OSOE-49