Discussion for Entity Framework weekly status updates

[ajcvickers]

Use this issue to make comments, ask questions, etc. about weekly updates posted in:

• Entity Framework Weekly Status Updates (2019) #15403
• Entity Framework Weekly Status Updates (2020) #19549
• Entity Framework Biweekly Status Updates (2021) #23884
• .NET Data Biweekly Updates (2022) #27185

[davidroth]

I have some questions regarding the new query pipeline.

• Will there still be relinq or did you completely remove relinq from the pipeline?
• There is this impressive "one-man-show"-project called Impatient
  I know that you are aware of this project. Did you consider integrating / adapting his great work? If not, what were the reasons for a complete rewrite without integrating his code / working with him on this?

[ajcvickers]

@davidroth

• It will be completely removed
• Yes, we have talked to @tuespetre and looked at Impatient. It was one of the factors in making the decision to change. While we are not using Derek's code directly, we have reached out to him about contributing to the overhaul and beyond. I know he has other commitments currently, but we are hoping to work with Derek again in the future.

[KexyBiscuit]

EF Core now targets .NET Standard 2.1

Does that mean EF Core won't be usable for UWP? (I may be the few who uses EF Core on UWP :-P)

[ajcvickers]

@KexyBiscuit That depends on whether UWP will support .NET Standard 2.1, which is unfortunately a question that I am not able to answer.

[bricelam]

@KexyBiscuit It looks like you already asked a similar question. If UWP and .NET Core 3 converge as Charles claims, and .NET Core 3 implements .NET Standard 2.1, then...

[KexyBiscuit]

@bricelam Yes, I did ask "will it", and now I'd like to know "when", though I know these schedules are likely confidential. In fact, I didn't expect that EF Core will target .NET Standard 2.1 this early. 😢 Maybe I have to go back to 2.2...

[RomanHubyak]

https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFramework6/issues/231#issuecomment-514225393

[mbp]

I would like to ask if #18831 could go into 3.1. It's a critical issue for us. There is no workaround, and the fix seems trivial to add to 3.1, and maybe even 3.0 as well.

[ajcvickers]

@mbp In addition to the workaround posted on the issue we will discuss whether to patch this in a 3.1.x release.

[lara-ec]

What is your policy of releasing bugfixes merged to master in a 3.1.x release? Specifically #19514, because I would really like to avoid using a nightly build in production.

[ajcvickers]

@lara-ec We make a decision on whether to patch for a given issue based primarily on:

• What is the impact of the issue on customers? (For example, how bad is the failure; how many customers are hitting it.)
• What workarounds are available and how easy they are to use.
• The risk of accidentally breaking something else in the patch by fixing this.

[JonPSmith]

Hi, could you consider adding issue #7829 to the 5.0 release. Thanks.