René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Deprecate support for `usethis ci`","articleBody":"It was an interesting experiment but Bitbucket pipelines is quite limited and testing it is hard. Issues like #1312 scare me a bit.\n\nI'm dreading adding support for GitHub actions, which has a completely different sort of ecosystem, including externalized repos. It is quite dangerous from a security perspective (zizmor would need to be integrated into the test suite to provide assurance that the files usethis generates are secure, but even then it feels like a weak guarantee).\n\nI'm considering the trade-off of continuing to support CI config architecturally versus giving up on it and keeping `usethis` focused on pure Python config, and leaving CI for the bespoke ways that people like to configure it.\n\nIn a commercial context, CI often uploads results to internal servers etc. so it will almost never be fully abstracted in the way that `usethis` envisages.\n\nMost tools run through pytest and prek/pre-commit so the extra benefit of adding CI config seems very low compared to the complexity of what I'm needing to build/maintain. And it's really quite orthogonal to the main objectives of this project.\n\nIt's also a maintenance burden, as schemas change, I have to bump them regularly e.g. #412 #926, #1299, etc.\n\nR usethis has \"questioning\" lifecycle marked for CI config and doesn't have it for GitHub. And I don't think it tries to do what usethis Python is trying to do right now in terms of dynamic population of the CI config file.\n","author":{"url":"https://github.com/nathanjmcdougall","@type":"Person","name":"nathanjmcdougall"},"datePublished":"2026-02-23T04:52:13.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":3},"url":"https://github.com/1313/usethis-python/issues/1313"}