| 14 Oct 2024 |
 emily | In reply to @maralorn:maralorn.de
Huh, I guess we need to lobby ghchq to bump to 10 before 9.20. đ (hey, another reason to ditch those old GHCs before they collide, no? :p ) | 20:14:41 |
 maralorn | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
(hey, another reason to ditch those old GHCs before they collide, no? :p ) I think even having the same attribute used for a completely different version in living memory would be a sin. | 20:15:47 |
| maralorn | Just in: New deprecation policy remove old versions when the version number collides with a new release. | 20:16:50 |
| maralorn | "Version number, you had on job!" 𤌠| 20:18:11 |
| maralorn | * | 20:18:23 |
| maralorn | I mean I guess incorrect uses of Monoid instances is kinda a theme in the Haskell world... | 20:19:28 |
 Tristan Ross | Just don't package multiple patch releases heh, it's what we do for Flutter so we can have 3.24 be `flutter324`. | 20:22:52 |
 alexfmpe | 3.24 or 32.4 ? | 20:49:14 |
| alexfmpe | Even if humans can tell by context, that will wreak havok on automation | 20:50:12 |
| maralorn | Well, we are already kinda paying that price. otoh its not super terrible, because normally in code you can just access ghc.version which is properly formatted | 20:57:54 |
| Tristan Ross | In reply to @alexfmpe:matrix.org
3.24 or 32.4 ? 3.24 because the minor version has always been 2 digits afaik | 21:11:02 |
| alexfmpe | I guess it works fine until 99.99 | 21:12:16 |
| Tristan Ross | Yeah lol | 21:14:04 |
| Tristan Ross | If it works, it works | 21:14:12 |
 sterni (he/him) | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
FWIW, pkg-name_ver_sion is the Nixpkgs standard well, those attributes predate any sort of established standard for anything in nixpkgs | 21:55:20 |
| sterni (he/him) | honestly the only realistic scenario for a collision has been introduced by our own maralorn since the ghc{MAJOR}{MINOR} could feasibly collide with ghc{MAJOR}{MINOR}{PATCH} as soon as MINOR reaches the double digits | 21:56:41 |
| sterni (he/him) | So maybe we should remove that or relegate them to the realm of aliases :p | 21:56:56 |
| sterni (he/him) | In reply to @hellwolf:matrix.org
maybe that would be the right timing for cleaning up this technical debt? the âtechnical debtâ is a public API of nixpkgs that production code depends on | 21:57:42 |
| sterni (he/him) | emily: I don't think we have the bandwidth at the moment to deal with the 8.10 question in time for 24.11, to be honest | 21:58:50 |
| Tristan Ross | Yeah, I think we're a bit too far into 24.11 for certain things | 21:59:56 |
| Tristan Ross | Maybe post release would be a good time? | 22:00:23 |
| sterni (he/him) | Yeah, seems like a decent idea. Then we can figure out what to nuke and whether to do it in 25.05 or 25.11 | 22:01:42 |
| Tristan Ross | Yeah | 22:03:49 |
| Tristan Ross | I was thinking we can at least get a survey out now and give it a few months to collect | 22:04:10 |
| Tristan Ross | I'm not sure what the influx of responses would be. | 22:04:33 |
| Tristan Ross | So maximizing the possible amount of responses would be good so we deal with the least amount of pain . | 22:05:17 |
| emily | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
emily: I don't think we have the bandwidth at the moment to deal with the 8.10 question in time for 24.11, to be honest I was hoping that a summary post / survey could be linked in the release notes before 24.11 release so that it reaches as many people as possible | 22:12:46 |
| emily | not that the data would be collected / a decision made by then :) | 22:12:52 |
| maralorn | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
the âtechnical debtâ is a public API of nixpkgs that production code depends on I think there is a way to phase them out which wonât actually need a migration by anyone, it will just take a while. | 23:01:28 |
| maralorn | Step 1. Provide underscored aliases for everything. | 23:01:47 |
