Skip to content
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

python3Packages.wandb: 0.16.0 -> 0.16.4 #293898

Conversation

samuela
Copy link
Member

@samuela samuela commented Mar 7, 2024

Motivation for this change

Upgrades python3Packages.wandb from 0.16.0 to 0.16.4

This PR was automatically generated by nixpkgs-upkeep.

  • CI workflow that created this PR.
  • Internal tag: c24ae5bb4c195d6f23aa5c3afada07cf.
Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@dotlambda
Copy link
Member

Why not force-push #286848 instead?

@ofborg ofborg bot added 11.by: package-maintainer This PR was created by the maintainer of the package it changes 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 11-100 labels Mar 7, 2024
@samuela
Copy link
Member Author

samuela commented Mar 7, 2024

Why not force-push #286848 instead?

Not a bad idea, but tricky to get right: If work starts on a branch, and then we auto force push work could be lost. For instance, commits following your suggestions in #286848 would've been lost.

Currently nixpkgs-upkeep hashes based on the new version number and package metadata, which works mostly ok. I'm open to improvements on the deduplication/update logic, just have to ensure that they are non-destructive.

@dotlambda
Copy link
Member

Anyway, let's close this and work on the other PR instead.

@dotlambda dotlambda closed this Mar 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants