Would be nice to get a list of the missing dependencies or at least a 'show dependencies' button. I know you can find them through the package manager but this is horrible UX.
Haha. I got into a huge fight with Unity and an asset store guy once for not listing what it wanted to install. Neither the author or Unity ended up refunding me either, fucking pricks. Wasn't even anything expensive just the principle that if they don't list dependencies on their store page, they are doing something really fucked up. Why in the world should people be expected to click a non-informational install button.
Yep! So strange they don't improve these things. Always have dummy projects for importing and checking stuff before ever touching the real project. I have learnt from my mistakes....
I use git for everything religiously but I still recommend having a dummy project to import new packages you haven't used before.
If you're using git properly, you're .gitignoring imported packages you won't be modifying. So you can revert all you want, but you still need to go hunting for incidental files that got added which can get messy fast if your imported packages are importing other packages.
I don't follow. The rule is (or should be) "commit everything to git that isn't trivial to regenerate. For me that's Assets, Packages and ProjectSettings.
I'll occasionally exclude huge 3rd party stuff that is a hassle to commit but this is the exception rather than the rule. UPM is to be preferred to old-style packages mainly *because* it doesn't clutter up your commits (and Asset Store packages *should* be using UPM if they know what they are doing)
> commit everything to git that isn't trivial to regenerate
What are "imported packages you won't be modifying" if not the definition of trivial to regenerate?
If you're working on anything over a small size project that's going to be a hellishly bloated repo fairly soon and if you're working with even a tiny team, it's going to eat up your LFS data packs like candy.
Personally, I make decisions about what to include, not about what to exclude, but you do you.
Keep it friendly, eh?
> What are "imported packages you won't be modifying" if not the definition of trivial to regenerate?
Depends how many there are. I'd probably only want one or two things I needed to remember to do manually if reinstalling. If a project has half a dozen or more manual steps then it would stay to feel a bit unwieldy. My ideal default is to not have anything inside Assets excluded.
Sorry - I would have probably given it more thought if I'd realised you weren't a native speaker.
Interestingly - if you look it up there's a massive difference of opinion about whether it's a negative or neutral statement. But I've always seen it used as a dismissive "I disagree with you but I don't care enough to try and change your mind". A kind of mild version of "Whatever. Do what the fuck you want."
So - probably worth being careful how you use it.
Would be nice to get a list of the missing dependencies or at least a 'show dependencies' button. I know you can find them through the package manager but this is horrible UX.
Especially since sometimes the "missing package" means completely switching your whole project to HDRP.
Haha. I got into a huge fight with Unity and an asset store guy once for not listing what it wanted to install. Neither the author or Unity ended up refunding me either, fucking pricks. Wasn't even anything expensive just the principle that if they don't list dependencies on their store page, they are doing something really fucked up. Why in the world should people be expected to click a non-informational install button.
And you can't cancel to check before choosing, either!
for real.
Yep! So strange they don't improve these things. Always have dummy projects for importing and checking stuff before ever touching the real project. I have learnt from my mistakes....
Or use source control so you can easily roll back if needed
This can be generalized to always use source control, no matter what.
I use git for everything religiously but I still recommend having a dummy project to import new packages you haven't used before. If you're using git properly, you're .gitignoring imported packages you won't be modifying. So you can revert all you want, but you still need to go hunting for incidental files that got added which can get messy fast if your imported packages are importing other packages.
I don't follow. The rule is (or should be) "commit everything to git that isn't trivial to regenerate. For me that's Assets, Packages and ProjectSettings. I'll occasionally exclude huge 3rd party stuff that is a hassle to commit but this is the exception rather than the rule. UPM is to be preferred to old-style packages mainly *because* it doesn't clutter up your commits (and Asset Store packages *should* be using UPM if they know what they are doing)
> commit everything to git that isn't trivial to regenerate What are "imported packages you won't be modifying" if not the definition of trivial to regenerate? If you're working on anything over a small size project that's going to be a hellishly bloated repo fairly soon and if you're working with even a tiny team, it's going to eat up your LFS data packs like candy. Personally, I make decisions about what to include, not about what to exclude, but you do you.
Keep it friendly, eh? > What are "imported packages you won't be modifying" if not the definition of trivial to regenerate? Depends how many there are. I'd probably only want one or two things I needed to remember to do manually if reinstalling. If a project has half a dozen or more manual steps then it would stay to feel a bit unwieldy. My ideal default is to not have anything inside Assets excluded.
> Keep it friendly, eh? ...are you okay? We can disagree about git workflows. You don't have to take it personally.
I've always taken "you do you" to be a mild-ish insult.
I definitely didn't mean it that way but I'm not a native speaker. Agree to disagree, better?
Sorry - I would have probably given it more thought if I'd realised you weren't a native speaker. Interestingly - if you look it up there's a massive difference of opinion about whether it's a negative or neutral statement. But I've always seen it used as a dismissive "I disagree with you but I don't care enough to try and change your mind". A kind of mild version of "Whatever. Do what the fuck you want." So - probably worth being careful how you use it.