Perhaps if there was a private nuget server internally for our group where we published, I could see turning on package restore for it and avoid checking in the binaries.****
** I think that we'll be looking into this option as well. It'd be good to have a caching NuGet proxy server in our network. Sounds like an open source project :) On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM, David Kean <[email protected]>wrote: > Space is very cheap in our case, we do a lot of builds over a lot of > machines, so we favor the ability to just enlist and build without anything > other than an OS. On some of our build machines, they are also completely > disconnected/isolated from the network/internet. **** > > ** ** > > NuGet also forces you to version packages very strictly – so it’s quite > obvious what’s occurring when you check-in a newer version. **** > > ** ** > > Perhaps if there was a private nuget server internally for our group where > we published, I could see turning on package restore for it and avoid > checking in the binaries.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Michael Minutillo > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:04 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: NuGet question**** > > ** ** > > You are making an assumption that NuGet will always be available and that > the package you're using will always be up there. We had an issue recently > where an outage with the NuGet feed resulted in failing builds on the build > server. It worked fine for us because we all had the dlls locally.**** > > ** ** > > I'd argue that putting dlls into source control is fine if they aren't > changing very often . Space is (reasonably) cheap and it does guarantee > that you can always do a "Get Latest. Build". When they DO change a good > check-in comment is sufficient (as opposed to full diffs) as it will > usually say something like "Updated Caliburn.Micro to version 1.1". **** > > ** ** > > > Michael M. Minutillo > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > http://codermike.com > > **** > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Stephen Price <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > No, that's the point. **** > > You set Nuget to manage the packages on the build, then you check in the > nuget config files (which tells it what packages you want it to manage/have > installed). Then when it does a build it checks your solution has all the > right packages and if not downloads and installs the dlls. **** > > So only thing you check in is the nuget config files that it adds to your > solution. **** > > ** ** > > Checking in the package folder (and dll's) would be a waste. you might as > well not use the package restore option and just check in your dlls. (which > is what traditionally people do when they are not using nuget... )**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM, mike smith <[email protected]> wrote:** > ** > > I'm not trying to start a flame war (standard disclaimer) but isn't > storing dlls in a source control system somewhat the wrong thing to be > doing? Unless the source control is very smart about DLLs, it's going to > store a total new dll every time you checkin new dlls, and your ability to > see what's happening with a diff is negated.**** > > ** ** > > Or does the checkin generate a bit-level patch file on the fly? That > would be nice.**** > > ** ** > > Mike.**** > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:51 AM, David Kean <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > You checked in the packages folder without the dlls? The dlls are under > the packages folder. If you don’t want to check in the dlls you can do > what’s called package restore, which pulls down the packages dynamically, > however, a change in the later version means that each developer box needs > to opt into this, so it’s a lot easier to check the entire packages folder. > When you update packages, NuGet automatically removes older versions if no > one is using them.**** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Price > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:12 AM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* NuGet question**** > > **** > > Hey all,**** > > **** > > Just started playing about with NuGet, and checked in the packages folder > into TFS. Did a get latest on my other machine and thought that NuGet would > toddle off and get the latest dll's that it was missing (Didn't check in > the dlls).**** > > Have I misunderstood something about what it does? Or am I trying to make > it do something it ought not?**** > > **** > > Is there a trick to make NuGet work with source control?**** > > **** > > cheers,**** > > Stephen**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Meski**** > > http://courteous.ly/aAOZcv**** > > > "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, > you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
