| 26 Jul 2025 |
 Toma | Absolutely, I just wanted the PR to be reproducable :) | 09:47:46 |
 niklaskorz | yeah really good job on that, thanks 😄 | 09:48:18 |
 emily | yeah I just mean, waiting until we have a PR for the warning seems good. (but I assume that would only take a couple minutes so it doesn't speak to waiting for the cycle or not) | 09:49:05 |
| Toma | I will be away for a week, so I wont be able to handle this myself
But I'd say the warning PR should be like
`useFetchCargoVendor ? null` and `warnIf (useFetchCargoVendor != null) ......`
About whether we merge the main PR now: uuhhh, I'm leaning towards not wating for stable, but IDK
| 09:52:53 |
| niklaskorz | just for clarification: useFetchCargoVendor = false; is not and will not be a thing? | 09:54:12 |
| emily | hasn't been since 25.05 | 09:54:28 |
| emily | that's why the nitpicking is dumb | 09:54:32 |
| emily | we will remove the warning after a release cycle | 09:54:41 |
| niklaskorz | the warning or the attribute? | 09:54:54 |
| emily | and it will become an implicit derivation var like all other mkDerivation args | 09:54:55 |
| emily | the warning. the attribute doesn't exist (after the -next PR) | 09:55:08 |
| emily | it's just an ignored argument | 09:55:18 |
| niklaskorz | I see, perfect | 09:55:25 |
| emily | In reply to @tomasajt:matrix.org
I will be away for a week, so I wont be able to handle this myself
But I'd say the warning PR should be like
`useFetchCargoVendor ? null` and `warnIf (useFetchCargoVendor != null) ......`
About whether we merge the main PR now: uuhhh, I'm leaning towards not wating for stable, but IDK
maybe args ? useFetchCargoVendor is better | 09:55:42 |
| Toma | That is better | 09:56:35 |
| emily | thanks for all the work you've done lately btw. try not to check notifications too much while you're away :) | 09:56:59 |
| emily | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
maybe args ? useFetchCargoVendor is better we will also need to reword the throw for the false case to just tell people to remove it | 09:57:24 |
| niklaskorz | "+1“ on that! | 09:57:24 |
| emily | and then after branch-off we drop 'em both | 09:57:35 |
| emily | or rather | 09:57:40 |
| emily | we leave a TODO saying to do that and then forget about it | 09:57:49 |
| emily | (for bonus points you can prepare the follow-up immediately and label it waiting for branch-off) | 09:58:21 |
| emily | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
we leave a TODO saying to do that and then forget about it there's stuff in lib saying like drop me in 23.05 | 09:58:55 |
| emily | every time I see it I consider dropping it but I sort of want to see how long it can last | 09:59:24 |
| emily | like waiting to see if it'll grow mould or something | 09:59:47 |
| niklaskorz | the throw can just be removed entirely if we just check for the presence of an explicit args ? useFetchCargoVendor | 10:01:18 |
| niklaskorz | ah wait no | 10:01:23 |
| emily | that downgrades to a warning | 10:01:32 |
| niklaskorz | we wanted a warning | 10:01:26 |
| niklaskorz | not an error | 10:01:38 |
