| 31 Mar 2025 |
 John Ericson | until the new Nixpkgs is out | 20:56:05 |
| John Ericson | (and I will have some new on-the-job time for Nix things I can put towards this) | 20:56:27 |
| John Ericson | (as opposed to the less-good promise of after-hours time) | 20:56:44 |
 emily | that's ignoring the costs on the release process itself and externalizing the cost of things like there being no way to do overrides that works with both supported Nixpkgs versions and no deprecation period onto our users | 20:57:02 |
| emily | there's a reason we avoid doing major bumps shortly before release even when we haven't totally rewritten a package | 20:57:30 |
| John Ericson | I think that delay applies more to the source code / behavior content than the packaging itself | 20:58:12 |
| John Ericson | the thing that is rushed here feels much more "meta" | 20:58:21 |
| emily | and right now I am taking time out of my evening outside because the costs of insufficient communication have been externalized and this needs resolving days before the freeze | 20:58:34 |
| John Ericson | this is why it is crucial to mentally separate 2.2{4,7} from build system / packaging / etc. | 20:58:51 |
 ElvishJerricco | raitobezarius: I would like to know an example I could use to verify whether or not Nix actually has the problem you describe. | 20:58:54 |
| John Ericson | emily: I would just go back to doing your normal evening things then | 20:59:16 |
| emily | In reply to @Ericson2314:matrix.org
this is why it is crucial to mentally separate 2.2{4,7} from build system / packaging / etc. as I said, if the old packaging was restored then there would be a much more viable discussion of whether to bump | 20:59:38 |
| emily | I'm happy to separate those | 20:59:45 |
| John Ericson | let me try to do this bump, and if I screw it up in the next few days you can "haha told you it was harder than you thought!" me all you like :) | 20:59:52 |
| emily | i don't think "don't worry about it, I'm going to do it anyway" is reassuring for the concerns I am trying to raise | 21:00:19 |
| John Ericson | (I am still thinking pre 9th freeze period start) | 21:00:24 |
| John Ericson | that is why I introduced "next few days" | 21:00:39 |
| John Ericson | the honus is on me to get a bunch of stuff working quickly, so we still have vastly more time for unkown-unknowns | 21:01:06 |
| John Ericson | * the onus is on me to get a bunch of stuff working quickly, so we still have vastly more time for unkown-unknowns | 21:01:13 |
| emily | I think you're responding but not listening. I'm trying to tell you why this relationship has become fraught and what we can do to fix it. if you filed off the Nix name and asked any of the people who handle bumps of major packages in Nixpkgs whether now is a good time for a change like this at this point in the release process they'd tell you it's nuts. | 21:01:31 |
| emily | "don't worry, I'll fix it" isn't a helpful response to that. those people put lots of effort into fixing things too | 21:01:51 |
| emily | and the response to some of the things that need fixing like breaking all overrides with no "safe" option for the transition period between Nixpkgs releases and no deprecation warnings has just been wontfix | 21:02:31 |
| ElvishJerricco | John Ericson: While I personally don't object to a Nix bump, I do think you need to realize that you are undermining the release managers by doing something to the release that they don't want. | 21:02:46 |
| John Ericson | how many people are against the version bump separately from the packaging concerns? | 21:03:27 |
| John Ericson | Upstream doesn't have prerogative on downstream packaging style, I know | 21:03:59 |
| emily | I don't think it is a good idea based on past precedent. i would be perfectly happy to bump to the new version with the old packaging immediately after branch off | 21:04:14 |
| John Ericson | my claim of authority there is not "I am a Nix developer" but "there was an RFC about layering" | 21:04:23 |
| emily | if it goes swimmingly, then next time around that's something we can point to | 21:04:39 |
| emily | we listened, talked, worked together, made a show of cooperation by changing the plan in response to concerns, and it went totally fine | 21:05:01 |
| emily | i would be very happy with that outcome | 21:05:09 |
