You don't even need the version part. It's just continuous delivery. Diego
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >>>> >>> >>> >>
