| 27 Mar 2026 |
 K900 | And no one wants to touch that | 11:04:27 |
 emily | it would just mean looking at the same job set for both, no? the actual tested job wouldn't change | 11:04:58 |
| K900 | It would also mean looking at the completion state of the other jobs | 11:05:22 |
| K900 | Unless we want to keep the basic "everything" check | 11:05:36 |
| emily | this would also fix the nixos-YY.MM vs. nixpkgs-YY.MM-darwin discrepancy with stable that I hate | 11:05:38 |
| K900 | Which would slow Darwin down quite a bit probably | 11:05:43 |
| emily | that seems fine to me | 11:06:01 |
| emily | like you worry about nixpkgs-unstable blocking on NixOS test builds? | 11:06:28 |
| K900 | Yeah | 11:06:40 |
| emily | I think nixos-unstable updates often enough tbh (and the freq of evals could be bumped to compensate for nixpkgs:unstable jobs going away) | 11:07:04 |
| K900 | Possibly | 11:07:13 |
| K900 | I think another problem we will have is getting people off those channels | 11:07:31 |
| emily | again I don't propose any change to how channels advance | 11:08:00 |
| emily | I genuinely just mean merging the jobsets themselves | 11:08:15 |
| K900 | Hm | 11:08:52 |
| K900 | We can probably do that fairly easily yeah | 11:08:59 |
| emily | this came up because I wanted to have one Nixpkgs pin that passed both nixos-unstable and nixpkgs-unstable gates which is hard to do manually right now because they're almost never building the same commit | 11:09:03 |
| K900 | Sorry, it's migraine day | 11:09:12 |
| K900 | My brain is very mush | 11:09:26 |
| emily | if they were at least attempting the same commits you'd just pick evals that have both tested jobs passing | 11:09:30 |
 toonn | Could the channel jobsets only contain the respective tests? Both depending on a third jobset that does the actual building of packages? | 11:11:20 |
| K900 | Nope | 11:11:37 |
| K900 | Hydra has no concept of jobset dependencies | 11:11:47 |
| K900 | So it'll just end up evaluating different commits | 11:11:56 |
| emily | it seems like it would take non-trivial load off the queue runner to merge right? | 11:14:50 |
| emily | since right now it spawns tens of thousands of Linux jobs for very close commits on nixos:unstable and nixpkgs:unstable | 11:15:21 |
| K900 | Probably | 11:15:24 |
| emily | maybe not relevant with the new runner, but | 11:15:28 |
| K900 | We're not running the new runner yet though | 11:15:39 |
| K900 | Or are we | 11:15:40 |
