search

pre-commit-ci / issues

public issues for https://pre-commit.ci
16 stars 3 forks source link

Enhancement request: Offer autoupdate_schedule never/off #83

Closed peterjc closed 3 years ago

peterjc commented 3 years ago

Quoting the configuration documentation here: https://pre-commit.ci/#configuration-autoupdate_schedule

autoupdate_schedule (optional, default: 'weekly') control when the autoupdate runs, possible values: 'weekly', 'monthly', 'quarterly'.`

Could this also support 'never' or 'off' as a way to disable the autoupdates please?

(I anticipate with larger projects being able to adopt the bot functionality gradually would ease adoption.)

asottile commented 3 years ago

the more disparate the versions are the worse pre-commit.ci performs and the more expensive it is to operate. this will not be implemented

peterjc commented 3 years ago

Ah, you mean the cost/benefits for the central dependency caching. OK, that does make sense. Thanks.

Borda commented 2 years ago

well on the other hand it forces to keep the particular repo up-to-date - the update creates new PR which triggers other CI which for its own build usually pulls the latest packages (dependencies) and eventually fails for future compatibility issues... this yields that the repo author will remove this pre-commit CI or mark the project as archived... is it desired behaviour?

asottile commented 2 years ago

sounds like the "continuous" part of CI doing its job to me!

Borda commented 2 years ago

sounds like the "continuous" part of CI doing its job to me!

kind of, so remove the CI when you do not want to have spamming contributor/bot :rabbit: btw, how about the eventual demanding resources (pre-commit.ci performs and the more expensive it is to operate) differ if a repo user will close/refuse all auto-updates PRs and still preserve very old versions, it will be in the end the same, right?

asottile commented 2 years ago

in that scenario the user would have to be actively working against the system

Borda commented 2 years ago

in that scenario the user would have to be actively working against the system

Actually not actively but passively, just to hang such PRs till stale bot closes them =D

asottile commented 2 years ago

look, if you want the feature and you're a paying customer I'll implement it -- I'm not going to build features which intentionally make the system more expensive to run -- I think you can understand that

Borda commented 2 years ago

@asottile very appreciate all your work and providing this great CI! :hugs: