| 31 Mar 2025 |
 John Ericson | so I would expect a good bit less behavior difference than e.g. that between 2.18 -> 2.24 | 20:44:17 |
| John Ericson | roberth's been dogfooding new Nix, and I plan to in a moment too | 20:44:53 |
 raitobezarius | didn't output path calculation change between 2.24 and 2.28 again? | 20:45:25 |
 emily | the only way we're going to avoid the 2.18 logjam repeating over and over is if the Nix team actually puts in the effort to communicate proactively with Nixpkgs processes and take the concerns seriously rather than throwing things over the wall last minute. as so often, it's about communication. Tom's comment claimed that 2.24 would remain the default only a few hours ago before being edited | 20:45:30 |
| emily | if this had been talked about earlier the concerns could have been raised and timing could have been discussed. when I tried to use the new packaging only weeks ago it wasn't in a state to even be nixVersions.latest | 20:46:17 |
| John Ericson | Nix in Nixpkgs would have already been bumped except for the packaging churn, so there is a bit of a tangled causality here | 20:46:19 |
 roberth | not that I know of. Where would that be? | 20:46:59 |
| emily | that's your prioritization decision though... | 20:47:04 |
| emily | this is why upstream=downstream is fraught at the best of times. the incentives are just not the same | 20:47:26 |
| John Ericson | pre planet Nix I was really busy doing other stuff in Nix (and also win work, unrelated to Nix!). Now after words I stick my head up for air and see --- oh shit, new Nixpkgs is almost here, and we're really behind | 20:47:46 |
