Skip to content

Conversation

@konstin
Copy link
Contributor

@konstin konstin commented Aug 25, 2025

In #1880, the concern was raised that the uv_build upper bound in the docs will go stale. This PR adds a GitHub Actions workflow that automatically updates the version daily with the latest uv(-build) version.

I tested this change on my fork, but I unfortunately can't test this in pypa/packaging.python.org itself. You can see an example pull request created by this action in konstin#2.


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://python-packaging-user-guide--1899.org.readthedocs.build/en/1899/

In pypa#1880, the concern was raised that the uv_build upper bound in the docs will go stale. This PR adds a GitHub Actions workflow that automatically updates the version daily with the latest uv(-build) version.

I tested this change on my fork, but I unfortunately can't test this in pypa/packaging.python.org itself.
Copy link
Member

@webknjaz webknjaz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for looking into this. I've pointed out a few problems and requests below.

@webknjaz
Copy link
Member

OTOH, I'd probably prefer this data extraction to be an in-tree Sphinx extension. It could get fresh versions on build and make use of Sphinx's built-in caching mechanism.

konstin and others added 3 commits August 26, 2025 11:08
Co-authored-by: 🇺🇦 Sviatoslav Sydorenko (Святослав Сидоренко) <[email protected]>
@konstin
Copy link
Contributor Author

konstin commented Aug 26, 2025

OTOH, I'd probably prefer this data extraction to be an in-tree Sphinx extension. It could get fresh versions on build and make use of Sphinx's built-in caching mechanism.

I can contribute a GitHub Actions workflow, but I can't contribute a Sphinx extension. To me, the workflow has the advantage that it allow explicit review and doesn't need an external service on build.

@konstin konstin mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2025
@konstin
Copy link
Contributor Author

konstin commented Sep 15, 2025

Hi, I wanted to chech in on this PR again. Is it realistic to have this PR merged with GitHub Actions workflow, or would we need a Sphinx extension?

@webknjaz
Copy link
Member

Hi, I wanted to chech in on this PR again. Is it realistic to have this PR merged with GitHub Actions workflow, or would we need a Sphinx extension?

I'd prefer an extension because it'd run on rebuilds and would reduce the PR noise. It's not as reviewable but has a chance of actually updating the published content more often than PRs that would sit in the repo for months.
Maybe other maintainers would want to keep up with these PRs but I have a lot of other projects that need attention.

@woodruffw
Copy link
Member

Maybe other maintainers would want to keep up with these PRs but I have a lot of other projects that need attention.

I'll go ahead and take responsibility for these PRs -- I agree with your rationale about a Sphinx extension in the long term, but I'm okay with taking on the review responsibility/load for this in the medium term as a measure of expedience 🙂

@konstin konstin requested a review from woodruffw September 15, 2025 19:02
Copy link
Member

@woodruffw woodruffw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @konstin! I'm going to do a last pass on this tonight, but otherwise this LGTM. I'll also see about the link check failure then.

(For posterity, I'll record here as well that I'll take ownership of triaging these automated PRs as they come in.)

Copy link
Member

@webknjaz webknjaz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:shipit:

@woodruffw woodruffw added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 16, 2025
Merged via the queue into pypa:main with commit a1588cc Sep 16, 2025
7 checks passed
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.

5 participants