Configuring package directory (issue 215)

Dec 2, 2010 at 9:44 PM

For reference: http://nuget.codeplex.com/workitem/215

I think we should consider pulling this out of v1 and spending some more time on it for v1.1 or later. My reasons:

  • You have to do this when you have zero packages in your solution, or you have to know to rename your existing package folder at the same time you add the nuget.config. Otherwise, you can't uninstall or update your existing packages
  • I've talked with customers and I've heard three reasons for doing this:
    • They want a global package location to share across solutions; this might lead to problems with dependency resolution during uninstall since it won't have all the context
    • They want to mix packages from NuGet and their own 3rd party dependencies; I don't think we want to support that, as we don't want to have to be careful about what else is living in that directory
    • They just don't like the name; when I press further, it's because they're already using another name, which leads to the above issues (sharing NuGet packages and non-NuGet depenedcies in the same folder). If it's truly just naming, is that compelling enough to add this feature?

I know the community has been vocal about this, and if we have compelling reasons to do it, we should. But maybe we need to spend more time on the design, and figure out something that plays a bit nicer with the tooling and side-by-side scenarios. Thoughts?

Coordinator
Dec 3, 2010 at 3:15 AM
What's the cost to pull it at this point? Can we simply disable it w/o too much code churn? I'm ok w/ that.
Dec 3, 2010 at 9:09 PM

dfowler, can you comment? I'd like to close on this today.

Developer
Dec 3, 2010 at 9:13 PM

I think we should hide the feature until we can make the workflow better in 1.1

Dec 3, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Alternatively, we could leave it in but not support it, essentially "hiding" it. If someone uses it anyway and then it stops working, it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd be okay with that.

Dec 3, 2010 at 9:14 PM

That's two votes for hiding. Haacked, others, what say you?

Dec 3, 2010 at 9:15 PM

That seems reasonable to avoid taking late risks.  It's an 'undocumented' feature.  It can't hurt you (hopefully) unless you go out of your way to use it.

 

Dec 3, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Okay, unless I hear any objections, I'm going to punt this issue back to triage to be moved to vNext.

Coordinator
Dec 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Ok, let's make sure to remove any documentation of the feature on the front-facing portion of our site. It can remain in the "Specs" section.