<@U1W8JCQ8N> here's a `4.1.0` build. Note I haven'...
# windows
t
@samuel here's a
4.1.0
build. Note I haven't thoroughly tested this. It's passing tests locally for me, and the service is coming online, so ymmv. Once we tag this as stable I'll build a formal version to ship to upstream Choco.
t
hey @thor, let's hold off on publishing anything 4.1.0 related. There are a few bugs and it's not ready for prime time.
But it is a good time to collect feedback to track fixes needed for a 4.1.1 release candidate.
t
Gotcha. Definitely didn’t mean to make it a formal publish, I can delete if you’d like, was just making it available to @samuel who sounded like was having some build/pack issues. Sorry!
t
Oh of course, I was reacting to
Once we tag this as stable I'll build a formal version to ship to upstream Choco.
I'm just paranoid 🙂
s
hahaha
trying to build this nupkg has had me wanting to throw my computer off the building
t
packaging is challenging, it's helped me build empathy for all of the work volunteers do to package up the world and make repos/distributions work smoothly!
t
Ah gotcha! @theopolis I’ll definitely wait for go ahead from y’all before doing anything :)
t
If the cpack/nupkg stuff can land (and is not too much effort) we can add it to the 4.1.1 milestone
t
Sure, right now I'm just updating documentation, getting
cpack
to build a
.nupkg
is unknown to me as I still need to scope it
t
Cool! Hopefully it is straightforward, I see there’s a NuGet cpack generator, so deep diving into its docs and copying the flow of others in the packaging.cmake file. In practice there have been tiny nuances with each type of package needing a bit of debuting