Skip to content

[pre-commit.ci] pre-commit autoupdate #4210

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.

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
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 4, 2022

Conversation

pre-commit-ci[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@pre-commit-ci pre-commit-ci bot commented Oct 4, 2022

updates:
- [github.com/pre-commit/mirrors-mypy: v0.971 → v0.981](pre-commit/mirrors-mypy@v0.971...v0.981)
@pre-commit-ci pre-commit-ci bot requested a review from henryiii as a code owner October 4, 2022 00:14
@Skylion007 Skylion007 merged commit 600d697 into master Oct 4, 2022
@Skylion007 Skylion007 deleted the pre-commit-ci-update-config branch October 4, 2022 01:25
@github-actions github-actions bot added the needs changelog Possibly needs a changelog entry label Oct 4, 2022
@rwgk
Copy link
Collaborator

rwgk commented Oct 4, 2022

QQ, only if there is an easy way:

Could these micro autoupdates be batched, e.g. run only every 1st of the month or so?

When going back and forth between master and the smart_holder branch, these pretty frequent but usually very minor updates cause the pre-commit command to go back and forth between versions. Each time I get a delay and it can be a bit confusing. It's not easy for me to update the smart_holder branch that frequently. A predictable ~monthly schedule would work better for me.

@rwgk rwgk removed the needs changelog Possibly needs a changelog entry label Oct 4, 2022
@henryiii
Copy link
Collaborator

henryiii commented Oct 4, 2022

Sure, we can do it monthly if you prefer. It'll be the first of the month IIRC, though maybe it's the first Monday of the month (this is currently weekly, every Monday).

@henryiii
Copy link
Collaborator

henryiii commented Oct 4, 2022

Though if it helps push you to get the smart holder branch merged in, maybe that's not a bad thing. ;)

@rwgk
Copy link
Collaborator

rwgk commented Oct 4, 2022

Though if it helps push you to get the smart holder branch merged in, maybe that's not a bad thing. ;)

The biggest thing that's holding me back is doubling the number of ci.yml jobs, to test 1. with py::smart_holder as an option, 2. with py::smart_holder as default.

Internally we're up to > 99.99% success rate in our big project using pybind11 in PyCLIF. What's remaining is stubbornly difficult to get (as usual for things like that). Current thinking is to get all the way through with that, then come back to the smart_holder branch here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants