Mailing-List: contact lucene-net-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.83.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:33:20 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CA+QKZbVj1Lc6HdES_sHUA1YOycxo1BHiAXtco=8snHKpiCZ8RA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com>
To: lucene-net-dev <lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d626a7428c8a04b3692077
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget Gallery updates and how this affect Lucene.net

--0016e6d626a7428c8a04b3692077
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi guys,
as you might, or might not, have read, the new nuget gallery is out.
http://haacked.com/archive/2011/12/05/nuget_org_update.aspx

Changes that affect our pkgs are two:

Package owners are displayed more prominently. In the old gallery, the
> owners of the package weren=92t displayed. Anywhere. Which was a terrible
> experience because the owners are the people who matter. A package owner =
is
> associated with an account. The =93author=94 of a package is simply metad=
ata
> and could be anyone.


Now our pkg page (http://nuget.org/packages/Lucene.net) shows me, Prescott
and the prev owner of the pkg id as owners. And the lucene.net community as
owner.
But in the list (
http://nuget.org/packages?q=3Dlucene&sortOrder=3Dpackage-download-count) yo=
u
get only the owner names.
So, maybe, it would be good to create a team-wide nuget account to add
together with other accounts (like also MS is doing with it's own packages)
And I would also remove the prev owner from the list, if everyone is ok
with that.

Package unlisting. Packages can now be unlisted. This effectively hides the
> package, but the package is still used to resolve dependencies.


That relates to the deprecated pkgs. We could hide the deprecated packages,
so they don't show up in the gallery when ppl search for lucene.
But they will still be used to resolve dependencies from other packages.
But, the downside is that ppl that directly downloaded the "old" lucene pkg
will not receive any update.
How do we want to handle that? We keep it like we did, or do we mark it as
"unlisted"?


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"

--0016e6d626a7428c8a04b3692077--