Skip to content

Github: Enable dependabot for workflow dependencies #2778

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
hoffie merged 1 commit into from
Aug 22, 2022
Merged

Github: Enable dependabot for workflow dependencies #2778

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions .github/dependabot.yml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
version: 2
updates:
- package-ecosystem: github-actions
directory: /
schedule:
interval: weekly
commit-message:
prefix: "CI"
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ann0see ann0see Aug 22, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After the first PR was opened, I think we should be consistent for all the automated stuff. Either Build: Dependencies: CI: as prefix for all automated PRs.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@hoffie hoffie Aug 22, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My thinking was that dependabot touches CI-only stuff (i.e. workflow dependencies) while the other job touches things which are related to our actual build logic. Therefore, I had chosen different prefixes.

If we want to have a single prefix for all, I'd go with Build:. aqt, Qt, etc. do run in CI, but not solely there, so that would sound wrong.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ann0see ann0see Aug 22, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the real problem is that we haven't agreed on a standard (i.e. when to use CI:, Build:, Autobuild, ...) Probably agreeing gives benefit but also more maintenance/thinking on our side. I'd like to have not too many different prefixes.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@pljones pljones Aug 23, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. I don't really care if something is "CI" or "Build" or "Autobuild". If the build breaks, the build breaks. I'm certain (almost) no client or server user cares, either! 😄 So the CHANGELOG entries really can be grouped, so that most people can just skip the lot when they hit them.

If I had to pick, I'd go for "Build" because it covers most ground.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@hoffie hoffie Aug 23, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Change to Build added here: #2803.
I'll manually edit the titles (which are used when no CHANGELOG line is found) of the previous PRs.