I guess so long as its also a separate package from the release package this might be feasible. So we'd have something like...
NHibernate-AutomatedBuild.2012.0523.1545.nupkg (May 23rd, 2012 at 15:45) NHibernate-AutomatedBuild.2012.0524.0822.nupkg (May 24th, 2012 at 08:22) It begs the question though: what version do you stamp the actually assembly with? 0.0.0? Or one of the above (2012.0524.0822)? Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes, that's what I meant. 0.0.0 might work... or we could use YYYY as > major, MMDD as minor, HHMMSS as revision... or anything else. > It really doesn't matter much, as the idea is to use whatever is the > latest successful build. > > Diego > > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry I think I misunderstood your point -- I just reread your message. >> So you mean that we don't need the 3.0.0 part and could just do the >> YYYYMMDDHHMMSS part of the version? >> >> I suppose this might work, but then we'd need to have *something* in the >> version slots to make NuGet happy (e.g., at least 0.0.0) else I don't think >> its version-composing algorithm will work properly. >> >> Was that more what you meant...? >> >> -Steve B. >> On May 23, 2012 2:04 PM, "Stephen Bohlen" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> No? Since you can't replace the contents of an existing NuGet package >>> without increasing its version number, how would that work? How would you >>> distinguish the latest automated build result from the one 10 minutes prior? >>> >>> Are you envisioning that we would script the complete removal of the >>> existing package and then post a brand new package named/versioned >>> identically to the one just deleted? And if a don't increment the version, >>> clients doing an update operation to get latest won't see anything new >>> because NuGet depends on version-comparisons to work, no? >>> >>> -Steve B. >>> On May 23, 2012 1:59 PM, "Diego Mijelshon" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >
