Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Paket lock file & doc #980

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Aug 2, 2016
Merged

Paket lock file & doc #980

merged 3 commits into from Aug 2, 2016

Conversation

pmiossec
Copy link
Member

  • Add the paket.lock forgotten in Feature/fix changesets comments policy error聽#979
  • Add some doc on how to use paket (especially how to manage the GitTfs.Vs2015.csproj file when a nuget package is updated or a new one is added!) Which is not quite easy to handle (even if its better with paket than with pure nuget)....

PS: The new TFS nuget packages add A LOT more dependencies than the previous ones (seems partly due to donet core), and that begin to worry me 馃槩

I don't know if there is a solution for that....(but that's for another PR)

generated with command:
`.paket\paket.exe install`
@spraints
Copy link
Member

The new TFS nuget packages add A LOT more dependencies than the previous ones (seems partly due to donet core), and that begin to worry me

oof that's a lot of dependencies. How many of them end up in the zip?

Add the paket.lock forgotten in #979

馃檱 thank you! is there a way to make one of the CI builds check that the packet.lock file that's checked in is correct? Like maybe after restoring packages it could check if the file is different?

@pmiossec
Copy link
Member Author

oof that's a lot of dependencies. How many of them end up in the zip?

none. I have tested the generated package and it works well without. But I must have taken the time to test it :(

is there a way to make one of the CI builds check that the packet.lock file that's checked in is correct?

No, I don't see a reliable way to do it. The lock file define the dependencies version calculated at one time (and thus validated as "it works" by the developper). The restore will be done based on this file.

The only way to recompute the lock file is to delete it and let paket recreate it. And then we could compare it with the one committed. But everytime a dependency will upgrade (thus we have an outdated package), we will have a warning/error.

The thing your are imagining is generaly done by not committing the lock file, and the lock will be regenerated at each build but that's not generaly what is expected because that's not us anymore that handle version upgrading of dependencies....

@pmiossec
Copy link
Member Author

none. I have tested the generated package and it works well without. But I must have taken the time to test it :(

and undo the GitTFsVS2015.csproj like describe in the doc....

@spraints
Copy link
Member

spraints commented Aug 1, 2016

is there a way to make one of the CI builds check that the packet.lock file that's checked in is correct?

No, I don't see a reliable way to do it. The lock file define the dependencies version calculated at one time (and thus validated as "it works" by the developper). The restore will be done based on this file.

ah. I was imagining that when CI runs paket that it could then do git status paket.lock. But I guess CI doesn't invoke paket?

oof that's a lot of dependencies. How many of them end up in the zip?

none. I have tested the generated package and it works well without. But I must have taken the time to test it :(

Cool.

Would it be worth adding a comment to paket.dependencies that mentions paket.lock or the paket docs?

馃憤 on this PR

@pmiossec
Copy link
Member Author

pmiossec commented Aug 1, 2016

I have added the links. Feel free to merge...

@pmiossec pmiossec merged commit e92502e into git-tfs:master Aug 2, 2016
@pmiossec pmiossec deleted the paket_lock_file branch August 2, 2016 19:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants