| 9 Mar 2025 |
 emily | anyway, I think a lot of rhetoric getting thrown around is dumb, so if you assume I agree with all of it then I understand that my position would look disingenuous or silly | 15:46:02 |
| emily | I do not think we should immediately destroy flakes and break everything forever, or that Nix before flakes was a crystalline jewel of bug-free perfection and no weird path-dependent backwards compatibility concerns, or anything | 15:46:33 |
| emily | I do think that flake internals are weird and buggy enough, and the number of breaking changes resulting from bug fixes that would be considered unacceptable for a stable feature but that would have been awful has been high enough, and continues climbing enough, that were the ecosystem to fork over, say, a declared stability guarantee for exactly one semantics of flakes (already different to the semantics we had one stable version ago), it would be very bad for all parties | 15:48:09 |
| emily | and if you think that both the Nix team, the Lix team, and the Tvix team are colluding to arrive at the position of "stabilizing flakes in a way that doesn't cause huge problems down the line is going to be a delicate process" then… well, anyone managing to establish a robust conspiracy from that coalition might as well be a god, but also I wonder how much time you have actually spent with the codebase? | 15:50:10 |
|  raitobezarius joined the room. | 15:50:45 |
 Sandro 🐧 | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/experimental-does-not-mean-unstable-detsyss-perspective-on-nix-flakes/32703/2 is another post that summarizes existing issues with flakes That's pretty well written 👍 | 15:51:20 |
| emily | there are political problems of course… for instance, you can probably guess at a reason why the Nix team's communications on this matter are quiet | 15:51:23 |
