| 26 Jul 2025 |
 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 |
