Getting the latest packages on the feed server

Sep 18, 2010 at 8:10 AM

Our fw link ( is now pointing to, which as I understand is Eric Hexter's server.

What process should we use to keep this up to date?  Right now, all our latest packages are checked in, so I see two choices:

  1. When checked in packages change, Eric builds them and pushes the updates to the feed server
  2. Eric gives some of us FTP access so we can push things ourselvesaa

Eric, what do you think?


Sep 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM

I would prefer to make a new mercurial repo that has the sources, or binaries that I can automate and take community pull requests. Maybe the sources is the best idea for now

Sep 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM

I like that idea!

"Be passionate in all you do"

Sep 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Sounds good as a longer term solution, but likely don't have time to set that up before we go public on Tuesday.  In the meantime, would you be able to make a manual refresh to the feed server with the current packages?  We're trying to get the ScottGu demos ready, and it would be nice to use the real feed for that, but it's missing several key pieces that were checked in recently.


Sep 18, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I will manually update the feed.

I can get the automation setup later this weekend.

Sep 18, 2010 at 6:46 PM

I updated the packages as of 12:45 CDT on Sat.  I am putting together another repo now and I am adding everyone as devs or coordinators to that repo so that we can maintin the packages there. . it is called....

Sep 18, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Great, thanks! When we move the packages there, we should switch to the versioned folder structure, e.g. Elmah/1.0/[files].

Also, this has implications on how we build things on our dev boxes, as currently we have logic that copies built packages into the server folder.  Now this has to go cross repo.

Sep 18, 2010 at 7:51 PM

I think you will still have test packages in the dev repo.
But the published feed will probably get much bigger than you would want in the dev repo.

Sep 18, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Thanks for this Eric. Great idea. Yeah, we should keep a few packages in the NuPack project repo but only for testing and they shouldn't be "real" packages of someone elses code (in the original code drop there were a few). Just enough to exercise the system like a test database would. Then we can keep the real packages here and use it as the central source repository for new packages (and anyone can grab them and put them up on their own feed server). Sweet.

Sep 18, 2010 at 8:29 PM

I like the way you think! ;)

"Be passionate in all you do"

Sep 18, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Completely agree with Bil. Can you log a bug to make that change? I'm "watching" the kids. ;)
Sep 18, 2010 at 11:04 PM
This discussion has been copied to a work item. Click here to go to the work item and continue the discussion.
Sep 18, 2010 at 11:40 PM

Well, it would only be the central repository for packages that we put together ourselves.  When externals put together packages, they'll upload them directly to the site (once we have a site that allows that).

Sep 19, 2010 at 4:58 AM
Edited Sep 21, 2010 at 3:59 PM

I automated the publishing of packages to the feed. 

Please feel free to add / changes / clean up the PackageSources in the repository.

The Repository url is I added most of the members of this project to that project. If you would like access just let me know.

If you would like to check on the automated process you can check the process on the TeamCity instance setup on the feed machine.:

Sep 19, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Totally awesome, Eric!  Checked in a couple changes, and within minutes they were up on the feed.  Way better than FTP access :)

Sep 19, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I added, Automapper and Should (and should fluent) to the nicepackage feed.


The automation can handle deep package nesting so when it is time to refactor the existing packages, there is not additional work needed for the automation.

Sep 20, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Should we rename the NicePackage CodePlex project to the lamer but more obvious NuPackPackages?  The association between the two will need to be clear once it's public.

Sep 20, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Yes, I just did not want to setoff any alarms, with the name before it went public.

Sep 21, 2010 at 12:42 AM

Question: On a clean setup of NuPack, should the feed initially be pointed to this rather than nowhere? Would be nice for the ones that don't RTFM to fire it up and see packages.

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:09 AM

Oh yes, the fwlink feed should definitely be there by default.  If there isn't already a bug, we should open one.

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:57 PM

I renamed NicePackage to NuPackPackages. 

Sep 21, 2010 at 5:14 PM
davidebb wrote:

Oh yes, the fwlink feed should definitely be there by default.  If there isn't already a bug, we should open one.

 It's already be there by default.