We use Nuget for our internal development to allow us to share code across teams. We run into issues however when one person is working on code that will be deployed across
In our company we have solved the cascading updates problem with the following setup. First we have the following setup for our NuGet repositories and build server.
Each developer can have (but doesn't need to have) one or more directories on their own machine that serves as a local NuGet package repository. By using a user specific NuGet configuration the developer can control in which order NuGet searches through the package repositories to find packages.
All solutions have automatic package restore turned on, so that we don't have to commit the packages to our version control system.
... then developers can only change the major, minor and build numbers, the revision number is set to 0 except in builds done by the build server where it is the build number of the build. This is important because it means that for a given version consisting of a major, minor and build number the build server will always produce the higher version number. This again means that NuGet will prefer to take the package version coming from the company package repository (which only gets packages through the build server).In order to make a change to one of the base libraries there are two possible processes being used. The first process is:
If more changes are required to (A) then repeat steps 1,2 and 3 and then delete the package of (A) from the working directory of (B). Next time the build runs NuGet will go looking for the specific version of (A), find it in the local machine repository and pull it back in. Note that the NuGet cache may thwart this process some of the time, although it looks like NuGet may not cache packages that come from the same machine(?).
Once the changes are complete, then we:
Another way of doing the development work is by taking the following steps
c:\mysource\projectB\packages\ProjectA.1.2.3.4)The commit process is still the same, project (A) needs to be committed first, and in project (B) the NuGet reference to (A) needs to be upgraded.
The first approach is slightly neater because this process also warns if there are faults in the NuGet package of (A) (e.g. forgotten to add a new assembly) while in the second process the developer won't know until after the package for (A) has been published.