lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiare...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:55:39 GMT
Added *pnasser* to all the nuget pkgs:

Lucene
Lucene.Contrib
Lucene.Net.All
Lucene.Net.Sample
Lucene.Net.Contrib

Any other nuget account I have to add as owner?

The dependency graph I'm doing is (shown inverted here)


   - Lucene.net (strongly named assemby from apache site)
   - Lucene (empty pkg with readme)
      - Lucene.net.contrib (lucene contrib built on my machine, unless
      there is already an official build somewhere)
         - Lucene.contrib (empty pkg with readme)
      - Lucene.net.sample (sample pkg, not sure if something already exists)

Lucene.net.all just a convenient way to get core, contrib and samples (just
empty pkg with dependencies on the 2 pkgs)

If everyone is ok with that I'll build the pkgs and publish them online.

Let me know
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Mine below
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon <
> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
>> simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > You mean a different impersonal Nuget account?
>> >
>>
>> yes. the goal of the impersonal account was to allow committers to push
>> nuget packages in an automated way without the need of having their own
>> account. there was some preliminary work of building nuget packages using
>> the build scripts.
>>
>
> Sorry, I haven't followed a lot lately: at the end, did we end up using
> teamcity on codebetter or another build system? I remember there were
> discussion on that but don't remember how they ended.
>
>
>
>>
>> there has been talk on various nuget channels about allowing nuget to have
>> --pre tag or having a separate build channel. If you're not familiar with
>> gems/bundler, its basically a way to push packages that are not official
>> releases. (nightly, ctp, beta, etc).   So in theory the CI could build
>> packages nightly if the build does not fail into a channels.
>>
>> its also helps from an overall branding perspective.
>>
>
> The author that appears on the nuget gallery page can be different from
> the owner that puts the package online.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > From what I've seen also used in MS pkgs devs have their in accounts but
>> > pkgs have multiple owners.
>> >
>>
>> If its possible to do so link your account as an owner & prescott's
>> account
>> with the impersonal one.
>>
>
> Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in somewhere in the source
> repository is not a good idea b/c someone could use it and publish malware
> or trojans under your identity. So unless the token is stored outside the
> source repository, it's not a good idea to have it in the CI.
>
> One last thing: I notice that the official lib is strongly named... again,
> not a good idea to have the key checked in the source control. I guess now
> someone owns the key for the strong naming and does the signing offline
> from the CI. Is that correct?
>
>
>>
>>
>> > But if you want we can also go with the Lucene.net team account.
>> > Simo
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"
>



-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message