| 21 Oct 2024 |
 Fabián Heredia | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
(do we even have a policy for how old aliases have to be to be removed?) * If I remember correctly 1 release for throws then auto-removal. | 05:55:50 |
 hexa | but fabian | 11:16:05 |
| hexa | removing aliases without a warning is not ok! | 11:16:12 |
| hexa | https://github.com/nixos/nixpkgs/commit/0b6a7a953d7bc7aa453683919c7bbcadad739aa3 | 11:16:13 |
| hexa | https://github.com/nixos/nixpkgs/commit/e72450d032e3e6b28124e73400959cef4f064fd4 | 11:16:30 |
| hexa | * removing aliases without a warning is not ok! \s | 11:16:39 |
| hexa | I'd say there is no consensus on removing them | 11:17:06 |
| hexa | and if you tell the wrong person they'll try to revert 🙂 | 11:17:15 |
| hexa | think of all the downstream consumers that are affected by this | 11:17:31 |
| hexa | * think of all the downstream consumers that are affected by this 🤷 | 11:18:14 |
 SigmaSquadron | the determinate systems community will never recover from this | 11:22:09 |
 emily | so the idea is that we have to go alias → alias with warning → throw → removal? | 11:22:30 |
| emily | seems like that would make aliases.nix the most stable interface in the repository | 11:22:42 |
| emily | I can't imagine any reason to attach dates other than to remove later though | 11:23:10 |
| emily | seems to me like allowAliases is the warning | 11:23:36 |
| hexa | aliases should warn immediately imo 😛 | 11:23:38 |
| hexa | yeah, kinda | 11:23:42 |
| hexa | but I think people want eval traces | 11:23:51 |
| emily | til remove-old-aliases.py | 11:24:14 |
| emily | I feel like the fact that that script exists and that it was in the release process notes indicates a consensus that extends beyond one person's objections. | 11:24:47 |
| emily | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
aliases should warn immediately imo 😛 (is there any reason we don't do that other than nobody made the infrastructure for it? seems like it would be a "simple" mapAttrs) | 11:27:38 |
| hexa | feel free to give it a shot | 11:27:59 |
 Sandro 🐧 | * Debians poor depreciation processes hitting again | 12:10:48 |
| Sandro 🐧 | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
says distro who has an ever growing aliases file, no proper deprecation cycle and other failings Those things are minor compared to Debian and you don't notice mid upgrade in an unstable state that some package is now missing. | 12:12:12 |
| Sandro 🐧 | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
so the idea is that we have to go alias → alias with warning → throw → removal? alias and alias with warning are the same thing, aren't they? | 12:14:13 |
| Sandro 🐧 | and between the other steps I think we had something like one release cycle | 12:14:24 |
 Alyssa Ross | no warning means nobody gets a chance to notice | 12:15:16 |
| emily | In reply to @sandro:supersandro.de
alias and alias with warning are the same thing, aren't they? howso? | 12:15:18 |
| emily | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
no warning means nobody gets a chance to notice I think allowAliases = false is meant to serve the purpose of giving notice to those it matters for | 12:16:18 |
| emily | (though whether it is effective at that, idk) | 12:16:23 |
