-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
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
feat(presets): group MkDocs and Material for MkDocs #28729
feat(presets): group MkDocs and Material for MkDocs #28729
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we need a new group. they don't need to be grouped
Are you sure? The mkdocs material we're on only supports Mkdocs 1.5. The next mkdocs material only supports mkdocs 1.6. In this case and likely at more times in future we'll need to update them together. |
These comments from two maintainers of Material for MkDocs seem relevant for us here. So I'm copy/pasting them here, with some small edits. For the originals see the links in the footnotes: From
From
Footnotes |
yes, the new material version support mkdocs |
ok, so we should remove mkdocs from our deps and let poetry/ material a proper version. will do tomorrow |
I suppose that
I don't know if this is a good idea or not. I guess pinning to a version makes it easier to debug when things go wrong, and also means we know precisely what version we're using of both packages? But I'm probably misunderstanding something here. 😄 |
I'm marking this PR as draft for now, until we're clear on what we want. 😄 This also stops us from accidentally merging work before it's good to go. |
We're now following the Material for MkDocs projects recommendations:
[tool.poetry]
name = "docs.renovatebot.com"
version = "1.0.0"
authors = []
description = ""
[tool.poetry.dependencies]
python = ">=3.11"
mkdocs-material = "==9.5.26"
mkdocs-awesome-pages-plugin = "==2.9.2"
[build-system]
requires = ["poetry-core"]
build-backend = "poetry.core.masonry.api" Source of snippet: I guess the above means we do not need my group preset PR? Grouping the updates for Renovate users would be against the Material for MkDocs project's maintainers recommendations. So in a way us grouping the packages would "endorse the wrong way to do things"? I'll let the maintainers decide whether to keep or close this PR. 😉 |
yes, I would prefer to close this PR |
Changes
group:recommended
presetContext
requirements.txt
exampleHere's a example of a
requirements.txt
that Renovate could update:Why group the packages?
Renovate should update both these packages at the same time, because
mkdocs-material
sometimes depends on a newer version ofmkdocs
.For example, to upgrade to
mkdocs-material==9.5.19
I first needed to update tomkdocs==1.6.0
.Context about
mkdocs-material
pinning the version ofmkdocs
There's a lot of info and discussion about the version pinning here:
mkdocs 1.6.0
squidfunk/mkdocs-material#7076Possible bounded package of
mkdocs-material[bounded]
in the futureThe maintainer of Material for MkDocs may decide to split their package into a
[stable]
bounded package, and the defaultmkdocs-material
that works the same as currently.Here's the full comment from
@squidfunk
: 1The new bounded behavior will go into it's own package, so my new
group:MkDocsAndMaterial
preset should keep working.Documentation (please check one with an [x])
How I've tested my work (please select one)
I have verified these changes via:
Footnotes
Maintainer comment on Material for MkDocs repo about possible bounded package
[stable]
↩