These are chat archives for chocolatey/ChocolateyGUI

20th
Feb 2015
ComFreek
@ComFreek
Feb 20 2015 15:41
Why does the Chocolatey package still install the old ChocolateyGUI?
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 15:53
Sorry, can you confirm exactly what you mean? The beta version of the ChocolateyGUI application, i.e the WPF version, hasn't been released yet, so it is only available on our MyGet Feed, not the Chocolatey Feed
ComFreek
@ComFreek
Feb 20 2015 15:56
I ran choco install chocolateygui and it installed the old ChocolateyGUI (=WPF?)
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 15:57
choco install chocolateygui will install version 0.11, which is the old Windows Forms version. If you install from MyGet, you will get the beta version of 0.12, which hasn't been released to chocolatey feed
ComFreek
@ComFreek
Feb 20 2015 15:58
I've just run choco install chocolateygui -source https://myget... (without -pre!) and it has also installed the old version.
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 16:00
WPF is gated behind -pre on all feeds.
ComFreek
@ComFreek
Feb 20 2015 16:01
The reason I left out -pre was that I heard that -pre prevents updates
Is that right?
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 16:02
I'm not sure were you heard that. It may prevent cup all, but it should update just fine itself.
-pre just means it's not recommended for mainstream usage.
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 16:02
agree with @RichiCoder1 no reason that I am aware of to not use -pre
perhaps @ferventcoder can chime in here
ComFreek
@ComFreek
Feb 20 2015 16:03
Yes, it was in the context of cup all. What does "update just fine itself" mean? That running the install command again forces an update?
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 16:03
There's a dedicated update command. chocolatey update ChocolateyGUI -pre -source https://myget....
Or something along those lines.
Unrelated: @gep13 I'm thinking about jumping on the MSI feedback. Were you planning or already taking action on it?
ComFreek
@ComFreek
Feb 20 2015 16:06
I wanted to avoid manually specifying -pre and -source, Chocolatey's automation has made me kind of lazy in that regard.
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 16:07
Haha, I'm afraid you're out of luck until we officially release then.
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 16:10
@RichiCoder1 feedback is more than welcome. Any updates to the MSI will happen post 0.12, which, if things go to plan, I am hoping to release next week
:-)
I am away to leave the office just now, but can chat later
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 16:11
@gep13 Sounds good! Poke me when you're in. I was talking about making the changes, but I'm cool with making them post 0.12.
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
Feb 20 2015 16:52
@ComFreek -pre preventing upgrades? I'm not sure.
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 17:33
Stole a lot of CoreFX's labels and thinking about stealing their Issue guide
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 19:22
@RichiCoder1 you around?
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 19:32
At lunch. Be back shortly.
Noted on HuBoard. Feel free to kill those labels in the meantime.
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 19:32
Ok, I am just away to go grab some supper, just put Alivia to bed, will catch up in about an hour or so
ComFreek
@ComFreek
Feb 20 2015 19:40
@ferventcoder Now I know where my confusion could stem from. The warning notice on Chocolatey.org for pre-release versions (e.g. https://chocolatey.org/packages/ChocolateyPackageUpdater/0.6.5.0) warns about prevention of updates of that specific version.
I always thought this would apply for all subsequent versions.
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
Feb 20 2015 19:41
I'm pretty sure you can't install that without specifically calling out that version - that is not a prerelease
that is a release in moderation
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 19:41
there is a difference between a pre-release and a package that is in moderation
you can have multiple pre-release versions, before actually releasing a version
just look at Chocolatey currently
that warning is stating that while you can install a non-moderated package version, it is possible for package maintainers to upload another "version" of that package, until it is correct. Which might actually mean they can how the package works, so the version 1.2 that you have installed, might not be the same as the version 1.2 you installed while it was in moderation queue
ComFreek
@ComFreek
Feb 20 2015 19:45
Thanks! And because of the equal version numbers Chocolatey thinks that the latest package is already installed, doesn't it?
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 20:39
yip, that's exactly it :-)
We have modified chocolatey.org to allow this to happen, most nuget servers, including nuget.org, don't allow overwriting of packages once they are pushed
we specifically allow this now, to cover the scenario of package moderation
@RichiCoder1 that is me back, will be on for about half an hour, and then I need to disappear
let me know if you are around for a quick gitter chat
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 20:47
@gep13 Back now
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 20:47
cool
I have no issues with you looking at the MSI for ChocolateyGUI if that is what you want to look at
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 20:49
My biggest thing is I do want to make sure we have not only a good install story going forward (Gui & Choco), but also a good upgrade story too. Especially with ChocoGui updating itself.
But that's stuff I'd be happy to put off. Big priority for me is finishing polish the app, as it is, to me, still at a barely acceptable level of polish. (Bad settings, inconsistent coloring and style, laggy or jump UI, and redundant or date modals)
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 20:50
And to integrate the new...
wat
And to integrate the new Choco
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 20:50
I agree, this is something that is definitely needed. Do you foresee ChocolateyGUI having the ability to auto-update as well, or do you see updates always coming from Chocolatey.org
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 20:51
I would like ChocolateyGUI to be as self-servicing as possible.
I'd actually like to develop a Squirrel like library so that ChocolateyGUI and other apps can chat with Choco and use it a self-updating mech
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 20:51
In which case, we might want to look at something other than WiX for the installation pacakge. Perhaps Squirrel, or even click once could be an option. That way, we could better control the installation/upgrade
great minds!
:-)
so yeah, in terms of roadmap, I would see the following as the next high level goals...
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 20:52
Haha. I think I'd like to keep using WiX for purely install stuff, but use Choco and the like for a support mechanism.
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 20:52
  • integrate with Chocolatey vNext
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 20:52
(Go ahead, sorry)
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 20:53
  • integration tests
  • polish of application UI, and perhaps tie in with new design ideas for choco vNext (will grab a link in a second)
  • improve the installation/update story
once all of those things are done and dusted, I would see us starting to bring in new features, i.e. other installation sources, webpi, etc
what do you think?
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 20:55
Absolutely agree. With :point_up: integrate with Chocolatey vNext being the highest priority.
Our interop is messy, and the boils over into everything else. That's the biggest reason I slowed down to a crawl with sources and polish
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 20:57
here is the link about suggested branding: chocolatey/chocolatey#640
not sure if you have seen that thread or not
yip, :+1: to highest priority
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 20:58
I hadn't! That's awesome! I would love to incorporate some actually designer ideas into our app (I think it looks a little bad myself >_>)
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 20:58
in that regard, I think we need to continue to support both operation modes though. i.e. detect what version of Chocolatey is installed. if 0.9.8.xx use PowerShell provider, if 0.9.9 use Choco Lib
considering where ChocolateyGUI has come from, what we have now is frankly amazing, but there is always room for improvement :-)
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 20:59
Agreed.
And I think I'd be ok with keeping PS support only if it's clear that it's Deprecated, or at least not super actively supported.
We could probably do some clever DI tricks with a consistent interface to hide the difference.
Definetly would kill off some of the more PS specific things (like the powershell themed message box), and replace them with more normal mechs.
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:01
yip, DI was my thought as well. Set up the registrations based on the detected version of Chocolatey
yes, I agree with that. There was actually someone looking to help with that as well, let me grab another link...
I never heard anythign back though
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:02
I know we had comments on a github issue that ran the same direction too. Hence why I focused on it specifically.
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:03
ok, so the immediate plan...
I am going to tidy up what is left over the weekend, and start of next week, and get a release ready for shipping.
if you want to start spiking on one of the other immediate goals, that would be alright with me.
what is your time like going forward? and where would you like to start?
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:05
My time, while still constrained, is much more free now. I can commit 10-15 hours a week, if not more, to improving it.
Where I start depends on where Choco stands.
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:05
damn, you have a lot of free time! :-) That is more than I can commit to this at the minute :-P
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:06
I do want to start integrating it now, but I don't want to make it a huge priority until we can sync up with Choco's official release.
and yah, I made it a big deal to free up more time for all the FOSS I have commited too xD
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:07
we are still pushing to get Chocolatey released, there is a DLL available that I think is fairly stable at the minute, but @ferventcoder can confirm that. The issues that we are seeing with the RC just now I don't believe impact the DLL, so we should be in a position to start refactoring to use that
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:07
That raises a big question. We want to sync with the installed chocolatey, but we also want to use a DLL. How do we consolidate those two concerns?
Do we, at runtime, search for the chocolateyinstall and then load it's dll dynamically?
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:08
The DLL is a nuget package, which we can take a dependency on, and my understanding is that it handles everything else.
but I will admit, although I have had it for a while, I haven't had a chance to play with it
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:09
I only recently started playing with it myself (and ran into some crashes).
I think for now I'll just pull the package and work against that. Keep things simple.
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:09
once Chocolatey is released, some of my time is going to go towards helping with automating package moderation, and other features in chocolatey.org, so I will have to split my time between a couple things
that sounds like a plan :-)
if you don't have any objections, when I have some time, I would like to work on the integration tests, so that we can start having a base of tests to run against when we start changing stuff, and adding new features. Thoughts?
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:11
I'd be all for that. If you can figure it out, more power to you :)
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:12
sweet! I have been on a bit of a Testing Kick lately at work, so happy to try to bite this off for ChocolateyGUI.
The chocolatiest bot this side of the Mississippi
@choco-bot
Feb 20 2015 21:12
Dude!
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:13
Woo! Once you get that in place, I promise I'll be good about writing tests :3
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:14
ha ha, good man, I will hold you to that!
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:15
Random: If you didn't notice, I've been inspired by the dotnet team, and decided to borrow (steal) some of their stuff. I think I'm going to fill out our wiki with more info on issues ala this as well as move commiters and contributers into the wiki. Also going to double triage the issues and make sure they're categorized and relevant, as well as add new issues where proper (for what we talked about) and have a roadmap document in the wiki.
I've been on a documentation kick myself :P
I'd be ok backing down on COMMITERS and CONTRIBUTERS if only to maintain consistency w/ Choco
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:17
i am fine with all of that, aside from moving committers and contributers. Although I thought the same initially, I have been copying the format/structure that @ferventcoder has been doing with the Choco repo. I think we need some sort of consistency between the repos. So before moving them, let's chat with rob to see what his thoughts are
dude, are you a mind reader?!?
that is twice now!
:-P
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:18
:sparkles:
I'll go ahead and do everything besides that, and open a meta issue (or just poke rob in choco/choco) about moving CO[]*
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:18
sounds perfect!
right, I need to do a shoot, better half is calling.
thanks for all your help!
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:19
You too! Have a good night :)
Gary Ewan Park
@gep13
Feb 20 2015 21:19
looking forward getting it released, and building out the next version
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:19
:+1:
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
Feb 20 2015 21:36
keep them as separate files in the repo. They should go with source, wiki doesn't ship with source
I'm fine and totally down with pointing to them from the wiki though. :)
@RichiCoder1 @gep13 ^^
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:38
Sounds good. An reasoning behind keeping them w/ the source? Licence, readme, and notes I can understand
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:45
They seem very "Meta" comparded to the former.
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
Feb 20 2015 21:46
It's a normal thing seen across most of the FOSS I'm in
but those also don't have a wiki in many cases
I think it is so that it changes with the source code
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:47
Hmmm. I suppose I see very code and repo things like build, src, docs, and licencing stuff as being part of the repo, and meta things like contributing documents, roadmaps, project structure, and faq as going in the wiki. But wiki is definetly a newer, github centric thing.
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
Feb 20 2015 21:51
yep. It also depends on if you wiki is editable by anyone or locked down
I think we plan to open the wiki for editing. Certain things we don't want edited
or to be more rigid around when those get edited
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:52
Hmm. My plan was to keep Gui's closed and accept PRs to update and revise wiki'd docs.
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
Feb 20 2015 21:57
right on. We may consider the same
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 21:58
Very awesome. Choco's docs are looking great btw
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
Feb 20 2015 21:59
Thanks! Gary's been helping shape them up as well :)
docs are in ship it mode
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
Feb 20 2015 21:59
If I can get all of these integration specs finished, I'll get to ship rc8
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 22:02
:+1:
:shipit:
The chocolatiest bot this side of the Mississippi
@choco-bot
Feb 20 2015 22:02
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 22:17
Hrmm. Looks like I was wrong about PRs and Wiki. That's a good question then.
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
Feb 20 2015 22:38
You can do PRs with wikis - it's weird though. It's not really a pull request
someone says, hey I made some changes over here
you have to add their repo and do it all locally
Richard Simpson
@RichiCoder1
Feb 20 2015 22:40
Yup I saw that. Maybe we can do that with ChocoGUI since we don't exactly have a lot of documenation that people would be interested in contributing too. Beyond installion and faq stuff, most everything in our wiki is probably going to be team controlled stuff.