| 31 Mar 2025 |
 John Ericson | fix cross is good, right? | 21:11:38 |
 emily | of course. though the first time it broke the channel but that's on our current CI | 21:12:03 |
| John Ericson | I depsartely need to eat in a moment, but also, what exactly do you (and anyone else) imagine the split package is going to break? | 21:12:03 |
| John Ericson | (we've seen the issues with the combo packgae and symlinks) | 21:12:13 |
| emily | my point is that it was totally unshippable days ago | 21:12:18 |
| John Ericson | (those are now fixed but there could be more) | 21:12:22 |
| John Ericson | I am not contesting that | 21:12:44 |
| John Ericson | I am basically asking "if we make it shippable, are there more unknown-unknowns, or is it good now?" | 21:13:06 |
| John Ericson | IMO risk from unknown-unknowns and risk from known-knowns like "wtf is this unreadable code" are quite different | 21:13:50 |
| John Ericson | the latter can just be fixed, and then it's good, the former is what needs time to incubate | 21:14:02 |
| emily | In reply to @Ericson2314:matrix.org
I depsartely need to eat in a moment, but also, what exactly do you (and anyone else) imagine the split package is going to break? overrides are the big one, esp for patches. and yes, the output shimming seems brittle to me, e.g. I am not sure it works with ^ or the like? the other thing is that the support code is complicated beyond any other non-compiler package set I've seen, but maybe devendoring will help that | 21:14:13 |
| emily | is it really so unreasonable to want to see one uneventful early-cycle Nix bump before we start doing them in the lead up to release coupled with breaking package rewrites? | 21:15:20 |
