Conversation
|
What are your intentions with this patch now that Mise landed? Do you want another one of these in or is the issue solved? |
Mise is good and convenient when working locally. |
Szelethus
left a comment
Szelethus
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not opposed to merging a few of these, as long as we make it clear that its not expected of contributors to test with and maintain all of these tools, not until we actually make a decision on which one we want to keep, and get rid of the others.
furtib
left a comment
furtib
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
The biggest issue is the need to create a new yaml file for each environment.
Totally agree. Micromamba, Mise and anything else should be convenient tools, mostly for CI but should work locally too. |
Yes, you are right! But it is possible to automate |
nettle
force-pushed
the
micromamba-environments
branch
from
6a04046 to
9a13be5
Compare
Why: Better organize CI-related tooling by consolidating mise configuration and scripts under the .ci directory structure. What: - Moved .mise/ directory to .ci/mise/ using git mv - Updated all path references in .ci/mise/README.md - Updated print-env.sh path in .ci/mise/config.toml - Updated script paths in .github/workflows/mise.yaml Addresses: Related to #163, #164 and #167
Why: Better organize CI-related tooling by consolidating micromamba configuration and scripts under the .ci directory structure. What: - Moved .micromamba/ directory to .ci/micromamba/ using git mv - Updated init.sh path in .github/workflows/micromamba.yaml - Updated MICROMAMBA path in .ci/micromamba/uninstall.sh
nettle
force-pushed
the
micromamba-environments
branch
from
9a13be5 to
0b086c3
Compare
3 participants
Why:
We should run all tests for different configurations:
What:
Addresses:
Part of environment tools evaluation for #163