You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
✔️ CONSIDER adding a target for net461 when you're offering a netstandard2.0 target.
Using .NET Standard 2.0 from .NET Framework has some issues that were addressed in .NET Framework 4.7.2. You can improve the experience for developers that are still on .NET Framework 4.6.1 - 4.7.1 by offering them a binary that is built for .NET Framework 4.6.1.
However, it was updated to netstandard2.0;net472 following the Sha1 deprecation, this update should actually have been targeting netstandard2.0;net462.
This is because net472 already implements netstandard2.0 and doesn't suffer from the same compatibility quirks 4.6 does. Effectively, this current target doesn't add any additional compatibility compared with netstandard2.0.
We could either:
fix the target to netstandard2.0;net462 to get the broadest compatibility
remove the net472 target since the audience relying on net462 and net471 must be quite small
move to net5.0 (which would arguably leave a lot of people behind)
Let's wait to see if there is any customer demand for 462 compatibility before changing anything here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The library used to target netstandard2.0;net461 as this was a previous recommendation from the dotnet team
However, it was updated to netstandard2.0;net472 following the Sha1 deprecation, this update should actually have been targeting netstandard2.0;net462.
This is because net472 already implements netstandard2.0 and doesn't suffer from the same compatibility quirks 4.6 does. Effectively, this current target doesn't add any additional compatibility compared with netstandard2.0.
We could either:
Let's wait to see if there is any customer demand for 462 compatibility before changing anything here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: