| 31 Mar 2025 |
 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 |
| 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 |
