So were leaning towards something like.... NHibernate-AutomatedBuild.3.0.0-YYYYMMDDHHMMSS.nupkg
...so we can ensure both uniqueness and proper version sort order (assumes impossible to build twice in the same second!). Is that right...? -Steve B. On May 23, 2012 1:18 PM, "Diego Mijelshon" <[email protected]> wrote: > A separate feed is what Microsoft itself is doing with MVC4 (see > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/henrikn/archive/2012/04/29/using-nightly-nuget-packages-with-asp-net-web-stack.aspx > ) > > I personally think using a separate package is enough, although naming > should be done carefully. NHibernate-CI might not be enough for everyone. > > Other than that, I really like the idea. > > Diego > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]>wrote: > >> There seems to be little if any consensus about the 'right' way to do >> this. NuGet now does support the idea of pre-release packages (e.g. >> something like 3.0.0-alpha as version number) and the ability to filter >> these IN or OUT of the search results in the NuGet client dialog but the >> idea of every CI build showing up as a pre-release version of the same NH >> package that would eventually become the release has some challenges: >> >> >> 1. pre-release packages use alpha-numeric sorting to determine >> 'latest' by version so while 3.0.0-beta would be properly newer than >> 3.0.0-alpha (since B after A), determining a suffix for *every* CI build >> that ensures that the proper 'latest' pre-release is always seen by nuget >> as 'latest' isn't trivial (we could do something like 3.0.0-ci-000001, >> 3.0.0-ci-000002, 3.0.0-ci-000003, etc. but that's probably a bit obtuse >> for >> people to understand what's going on and in any case we'd quickly run out >> of digits unless we did something silly like >> 3.0.0-ci-0000000000000000000000000000001 ) >> 2. IMO there is (probably) a difference betw. a) people who will only >> want to use the official release, b) people who are willing to use >> 'official pre-release milestones' like alpha, beta, whatever, and c) >> people >> who really want to live on the bleeding edge of 'every CI build'. NuGet's >> pre-release versioning strategy distinguishes betw. a) and b) but NOT >> betw. >> b) and c). "Muddying" the distinction betw. b) and c) for us would mean >> that it would no longer be possible to use nuget's pre-release versioning >> to actually release something like 3.0.0-alpha and have it appear as >> 'latest pre-release' b/c it wouldn't be 'after 3.0.0-ci-0000X. Creatively >> considering the suffixing strategy might permit this to still work, but >> its >> non-trivial to reason through. Worse, even if we were to do something >> clever with suffixes that solved this problem we'd need to consider how to >> handle the situation where we put out 3.0.0.-special-suffix-for-beta and >> then someone commits and the CI process publishes something that suddenly >> appears LATER than 3.0.0-special-suffx-for-beta. This would make it more >> challenging for those seeking the beta to find it since it wouldn't any >> longer be 'latest'. >> >> All of these limitations re: the design/impl of nuget's pre-release >> versioning scheme lead me to conclude that using it for CI builds is too >> much of a problem (both for package authors and for package consumers). >> FWIW, I've done considerable investigation into this in the context of >> other OSS projects with CI builds and have concluded that the only feasible >> strategy for publishing CI-build-based packages to nuget is one of the >> following: >> >> 1. Create your own sep. NuGet feed (either self-hosted or something >> like myget.org) and post CI-build-based packages there; those that >> want 'bleeding edge' add this second feed to their nuget client; those >> that >> don't can still distinguish betw. pre-release milestone versions (alpha, >> beta, etc.) and actual release versions in the main nuget feed >> 2. Create a completely separate package entirely (e.g., >> NHibernate-CI.nupkg vs. NHibernate.nupkg) that represents the >> CI-build-based content and still push this 'second' package to the main >> nuget feed. >> >> #1 is less discoverable but since you can filter by nuget feed source in >> the Nuget dialog box its then possible for a consumer to explicitly select >> the CI-only feed when they want to add/update the package based on CI build >> and then select the main nuget feed only when they want to see either/or >> pre-release milestone packages or the final release packages. >> >> #2 is more discoverable since its in the main feed (and would presumably >> contain the name 'NHibernate' as part of its package name so it would >> appear in the search results) but it has another challenge: if its a >> DIFFERENT package entirely, then when the main package goes 'GA' (release) >> consumers of the NHibernate-CI package will have NO WAY OF KNOWING b/c they >> won't be using the main NHibernate.nupkg in their projects at that point >> (and doing a nuget-update-packages won't pull down the 'official release' >> at that point b/c they aren't using that actual package at all). >> >> If there are other ideas about the best way to handle this, then I am >> *absolutely* interested in hearing about them since this is a non-trivial >> set of issues to grapple with and I continue to seek the best possible >> approach that might be out there (for NH as well as other .NET OSS projects >> that have this exact same set of challenges to exposing their CI builds as >> NuGet packages). >> >> Regards, >> Steve Bohlen >> [email protected] >> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com >> http://twitter.com/sbohlen >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Alexander I. Zaytsev >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> I think that it would be greate if our CI-builds would be available at >>> the nuget. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >> >> >
