| 25 Jul 2025 |
|  @federicodschonborn:matrix.org changed their display name from Wormy McWormface 🏳️🌈 (he/they) to Cat McFishface 🏳️🌈 (he/they). | 01:43:15 |
| 26 Jul 2025 |
|  oak 🏳️🌈♥️ changed their profile picture. | 08:28:46 |
 niklaskorz | @Toma I rebased + reran your treewide to resolve the merge conflicts, will also run nixpkgs-review for darwin and linux in a bit, but otherwise I think it’s good to go? | 08:46:24 |
| niklaskorz | oh great already new merge conflicts since I rebased 🫠 | 08:47:52 |
| niklaskorz | individual PRs removing useFetchCargoVendor by themselves makes this pretty hard | 08:50:23 |
| niklaskorz | I’d suggest anyone reading here to stop requesting PRs to remove it themselves, except for new packages of course | 08:50:47 |
 Toma | In reply to @niklaskorz:matrix.org
@Toma I rebased + reran your treewide to resolve the merge conflicts, will also run nixpkgs-review for darwin and linux in a bit, but otherwise I think it’s good to go? As discussed earlier, we were considering waiting until https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/423228 gets into stable so that we can do this treewide both on stable and master, to avoid much of the backporting issues.
Though, there hasn't been a staging-next-25.05 cycle since then...
So maybe we can deal with a few backporting conflicts until then.
idk, what do you think is better? | 09:27:40 |
| niklaskorz | my opinion: maintainers are already removing the attribute individually in master, meaning they already have to deal with the backporting conflicts, so I think having the treewide land now is the easier approach to at least have it consistent | 09:29:59 |
 Gaétan Lepage | Can someone from the Rust team (is that a thing?) ACK the PR? I don't feel like merging this beast myself. | 09:30:55 |
 emily | -next-25.05 is due soon | 09:31:19 |
| emily | like within next couple days l | 09:31:28 |
| emily | * | 09:31:34 |
| emily | there's a big security fix | 09:31:38 |
| emily | so if you can wait a week I'd wait a week | 09:31:44 |
| niklaskorz | I see, let’s add that in the treewide PR so it’s documented | 09:32:12 |
| emily | unless it's an emergency. did someone open a tracking issue to remove them all by hand? 😆 | 09:32:13 |
| niklaskorz | will add a comment | 09:32:17 |
| emily | the first time I saw someone nitpicking about a new package set the flag was when I realized we gotta make it warn | 09:32:56 |
| emily | * | 09:33:09 |
| emily | I mean FWIW I'm not strongly against merging into master now | 09:33:45 |
| emily | if people are super impatient about doing it manually | 09:33:55 |
| niklaskorz | hm yeah, if staging lands in a week that also means we’d only have to deal with backport conflicts for a week | 09:34:53 |
| emily | this is a collective action problem that could be solved by everyone choosing to just be chill about one useless variable in their packages :P | 09:35:39 |
| emily | but I remember how it was with the formatter so | 09:35:45 |
| niklaskorz | if us nixpkgs contributors can do one thing well, it’s not acting coordinated! | 09:36:40 |
| emily | In reply to @niklaskorz:matrix.org
I’d suggest anyone reading here to stop requesting PRs to remove it themselves, except for new packages of course FWIW I encourage you to push back very hard on this | 09:41:54 |
| emily | since this request is definitionally out of scope for any PR that isn't intended as a general cleanup and that doesn't add a new package | 09:42:25 |
| emily | I wish we would more proactively reject such requests as unreasonable and hide the comments | 09:42:50 |
| niklaskorz | I’m fine with either honestly, and have the according comment written and ready to submit on the treewide. So ultimately I’m leaving it to @Toma now whether I should press merge or press „submit review comment". | 09:44:45 |
| emily | my personal feeling is that teaching a week of more new reviewers that requesting unrelated sed scripts be run isn't how we ought to do things is higher value than getting it merged now, but I've only personally seen one or two nitpicks on the matter so far so I might be out of touch :) | 09:46:35 |
