| 31 Mar 2025 |
 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 |
| emily | we could also ship a patching interface that works with both old and new packaging in 25.05 | 21:06:06 |
| emily | to help a transition to that | 21:06:15 |
| emily | just like we do with lib changes | 21:06:21 |
| John Ericson | On the level of really slowing down and listening, I feel like all the upset about the new packaging has been on things that are not actually the split itself | 21:06:47 |
| John Ericson | And just about everything I've done in Nix and otherwise since 2022 and those RFCs, has been about layering the separate and cool down a bunch of issues | 21:07:35 |
| emily | I agree with that. I have no objection to splitting up the packaging by itself | 21:07:46 |
| John Ericson | and, having not been the one doing the Nixpkgs stuff, and just doing the in-tree stuff, I was under the mistaken impresssion that it was fine | 21:08:05 |
| emily | it's the specific way it's done and the communication around it and the timing and the lack of attention to back compat | 21:08:10 |
| emily | i get that this is frustrating on your end too but the first most of us heard of this packaging was when 2.26 got merged with it | 21:08:40 |
| John Ericson | and so now it's painful to see when I felt so close to being done these herdles | 21:08:41 |
| emily | just like the first we heard of the plan to do another Nix bump was when a comment got edited a few hours ago | 21:09:00 |
| John Ericson | hell, even when I am doing other things in Nixpkgs like the compilers and hte libs and whatnot, it is often breaking up packages into smaller packages | 21:09:09 |
| emily | and I let the packaging topic drop since I've had other commitments and shipping a problematic nixVersions.latest isn't the end of the world even if ideally avoidable | 21:09:58 |
| emily | if I'd known it was going to go fix cross -> bump latest -> bump default over a few days leading up to freeze I'd have pressed the points harder | 21:10:32 |
