| 31 Mar 2025 |
 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 |
| 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 |
| emily | even 2.24 took a couple tries to stick | 21:15:30 |
| emily | and I advocated for that bump | 21:15:37 |
| emily | because I don't think the drift is good for the projects | 21:15:49 |
| emily | but the only way to solve the root cause is proactive communication and prioritization of Nixpkgs' needs and concerns for a critical component | 21:16:19 |
| John Ericson | Ultimately I will prioritize a good healthy working relationship over not delaying the split package 6 months more | 21:17:05 |
| John Ericson | but please ask yourself | 21:17:08 |
| John Ericson | the list of things above | 21:17:12 |
| John Ericson | it looks entirely like static known issues to me | 21:17:23 |
| John Ericson | I am a bit scared for 2.28 right now, yes, because that is where unknown-unknowns come from | 21:17:39 |
| John Ericson | but you already proposed we do just that (and monopackage) | 21:17:53 |
| emily | nothing blocks shipping a patching mechanism that works with both packagings in 25.06 and backporting to 24.11, right? | 21:18:00 |
| John Ericson | the marginial cost of the split package feels very low to me | 21:18:09 |
| emily | in which case we would be free to break the old way in 25.11 | 21:18:14 |
| John Ericson | because we can simply test all the things you mentioned right away | 21:18:20 |
