| 31 Mar 2025 |
 raitobezarius | * this meant that who had this in their cache had to cache bust everything | 20:50:27 |
 emily | there's a reason we ended up on 2.18 for so long and rushing while waving away concerns isn't going to fix it :( if we want to keep the versions synced then there needs to be work to rebuild the trust that concerns will be taken seriously and regressions handled. those concerns right now include timing relative to the freeze, breaking patches/flag overrides with zero deprecation period for one of the most critical packages,the packaging rewrite being understood by maybe 3 people in the world, and the fact that all this is being declared by fiat with no prior clarity | 20:50:33 |
| raitobezarius | the problem is not the bug the problem is that output path calculation changes are very visible especially if they do change a lot of paths | 20:50:46 |
 John Ericson | libfetchers is full of crap that roberth and I have yet to wade through 🤷 | 20:50:50 |
| John Ericson | in all forks | 20:50:53 |
| raitobezarius | not arguing about the bug qualification | 20:51:00 |
| John Ericson | you won't find me disagreeing about that! | 20:51:03 |
| emily | three days ago a member of the Nix team said he couldn't understand the packaging. ten hours ago another member announced in the release thread that the plan was to ship 2.24 by default before editing it | 20:51:14 |
| raitobezarius | arguing about our responsibility to ensure that we don't unnecessarily cache bust and that we discuss potential cache busts before sending them in releases | 20:51:23 |
| raitobezarius | no matter if they are bugs or unsound | 20:51:35 |
| emily | maybe all those concerns were resolved within the past few days? but even if so it would be premature to launch into a bump given that | 20:51:39 |
| John Ericson | I dunno what that editted thing was about because I woke up around 11 pm EDT | 20:51:43 |
| John Ericson | raitobezarius: I am not even arguing with you | 20:52:01 |
| emily | how can Nixpkgs and Nix communicate if y'all aren't even on the same page about packaging and defaults? | 20:52:04 |
| John Ericson | stop being slimy | 20:52:05 |
| John Ericson | lix has a fix, it ilooks good | 20:52:14 |
| John Ericson | we're happy to take it | 20:52:18 |
| John Ericson | the end | 20:52:19 |
| John Ericson | if there is a bug in the multitide of ways (too many!) fetchers can cash or not cash | 20:52:37 |
| John Ericson | it shuold be fixed | 20:52:41 |
| raitobezarius | sorry that you get that feeling, i am only repeating that it would be nice to mark output path changes as such and to verify those before sending a release | 20:52:48 |
| emily | I know it will cost you to postpone a bump until early on the next release cycle but you don't seem to fully appreciate the costs on our end, and offloading them to us will just give us 2.18 forever | 20:52:50 |
| John Ericson | I don't recall anyone touching that code recently, except for maybe eelco fixing a regression about whehter fetching should substitute | 20:53:09 |
| raitobezarius | fixing a crash does not always mean diverging the output path calculation | 20:53:17 |
| John Ericson | if it was a bug fix that caused a new issue, that's unfortuately (and a bit ironic) | 20:53:29 |
| John Ericson | but still goes to "no one has been tryign to do fancy new feature stuff here recently" | 20:53:46 |
| raitobezarius | but i feel like i'm derailing the important discussion emily is trying to have | 20:53:49 |
| raitobezarius | so let's leave it at it | 20:53:51 |
| John Ericson | ok, thank you. By all means, I don't want you all to have to bend backwards to be bug-for-bug compatible with us :) | 20:54:19 |
| John Ericson | so for any changes that looks unintentional, yes very good to let us know | 20:54:39 |
