Comments for Geek Induldence http://geekindulgence.com Code. Technology. Life. Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:50:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Using OctoPack with NuGet Package Restore by jfrench http://geekindulgence.com/tips-and-tricks/using-octopack-with-nuget-package-restore/#comment-14 jfrench Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:50:45 +0000 http://geekindulgence.com/?p=37#comment-14 Hey Paul, No problem! Keep up the awesome work on Octopus. I'm anxiously awaiting the role-based security update so I can enable octopus deployments to my production site. -Jeff Hey Paul,

No problem! Keep up the awesome work on Octopus. I’m anxiously awaiting the role-based security update so I can enable octopus deployments to my production site.

-Jeff

]]> Comment on Using OctoPack with NuGet Package Restore by Paul Stovell http://geekindulgence.com/tips-and-tricks/using-octopack-with-nuget-package-restore/#comment-13 Paul Stovell Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:22:55 +0000 http://geekindulgence.com/?p=37#comment-13 Hi Jeff, Thanks for the blog post and pull request. I've merged it, and also changed the way the path to NuGet.exe is resolved so that it can find it under the .nuget folder. Much appreciated! Thanks, Paul Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the blog post and pull request. I’ve merged it, and also changed the way the path to NuGet.exe is resolved so that it can find it under the .nuget folder. Much appreciated!

Thanks,

Paul

]]> Comment on Glimpse + AppHarbor = Sad Face :( by Andrew Ma http://geekindulgence.com/web-development/glimpse-appharbor-sad-face/#comment-8 Andrew Ma Sat, 30 Jul 2011 20:28:09 +0000 http://www.geekindulgence.com/?p=22#comment-8 Looks like this was resolved. Details here: https://github.com/Glimpse/Glimpse/pull/88 Looks like this was resolved. Details here: https://github.com/Glimpse/Glimpse/pull/88

]]> Comment on Glimpse + AppHarbor = Sad Face :( by Troels Thomsen http://geekindulgence.com/web-development/glimpse-appharbor-sad-face/#comment-2 Troels Thomsen Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:27:54 +0000 http://www.geekindulgence.com/?p=22#comment-2 I would recommend going with the X-Forwarded-For header. It is true that this could potentially break in other environments, but it is still the de facto standard when working with load-balancing. In case you're worried about the risk, you could add a variable on AppHarbor that gets injected to the configuration file. If this variable isn't set, you can avoid considering the X-Forwarded-For header. I would recommend going with the X-Forwarded-For header. It is true that this could potentially break in other environments, but it is still the de facto standard when working with load-balancing.

In case you’re worried about the risk, you could add a variable on AppHarbor that gets injected to the configuration file. If this variable isn’t set, you can avoid considering the X-Forwarded-For header.

]]>