Obligatory +1 as it's my issue -- I'm also open to less frequent.

My pitch: This is an upper bound on how often we update dependencies, not a
lower bound. If an actual person sees an actual reason to update a
dependency, they can and should still do that :)

--EM

On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 9:27 AM Alex Dutra <alex.du...@dremio.com.invalid>
wrote:

> +0 as well, I am not bothered by Renovate at all personally.
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 6:16 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +0 -- Renovate "noise" does not bother me personally, but I'm ok with
> less
> > frequent updates.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dmitri.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 8:41 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I know it's a hot topic, but I would like to avoid any frustration in
> > > our community.
> > >
> > > Before the vote, let me put some context.
> > >
> > > To manage our dependency updates, we are using renovatebot.
> > > The current renovatebot configuration uses "at any time" schedule
> > > (e.g. * * * * * cron), except for AWS SDK and boto3 updates which run
> > > weekly.
> > > Some contributors are complaining about the "noise" generated by
> > > renovatebot.
> > > In order to "mitigate" that, we introduced "polaris-renovate" label to
> > > easily filter the notification coming from renovatebot.
> > > However, an issue has been created 4 days ago
> > > (https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1018), meaning the "issue"
> > > is still there.
> > >
> > > So, I propose this vote to have clear feedback from the community, as
> > > we don't have clear lazy consensus.
> > >
> > > The vote is to schedule renovatebot update weekly:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 - Use weekly schedule for all renovatebot updates
> > > [ ] 0
> > > [ ] -1 - Don't use weekly schedule, keep the "at any time" schedule
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > NB: we can consider this vote as a code modification vote (see
> > >
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification
> > ).
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to