Release Management | 324 Members | |
| 25.11 "Xantusia" | https://nixos.github.io/release-wiki/Home.html | 89 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 16 Nov 2025 | ||
| Primarily we have staging-25.11 because the current staging branch won’t reach 25.11 anymore and we want to make it possible directly create the backport PR to staging-25.11. To not complicate things too much, we already create the staging-next-25.11 branch even though it has no technical sense until branchoff | 15:08:04 | |
In reply to @vcunat:matrix.orgI'm aware | 15:08:07 | |
I think we need staging-next-25.11 already for the auto-merging workflow to work right. | 15:08:32 | |
| i.e. just give your PR to staging, the backport staging-25.11 label | 15:08:35 | |
In reply to @leona:leona.isSo it's just there for the regular automatic merges? | 15:08:36 | |
| I thought those don't make too much sense before release-25.11 is created | 15:09:02 | |
| Yes. It would work without it, but then the workflow would again look different than for the other branches and I didn’t like it | 15:09:23 | |
| I think this is more confusing than helpful and in the future, staging-next-26.05 should only be created after the last merge of staging next into master before branch-off | 15:10:00 | |
| We currently auto merge master -> staging-next -> staging | 15:10:13 | |
| You don’t want staging-25.11 to exist in this stage too? This was an explicit wish by multiple contributors because previously they forgot to backport PRs from staging that didn’t reach the release | 15:11:27 | |
| I mean yes, we could of course create staging-next-25.11 only at the time of branch off | 15:12:26 | |
| The latter of those automatic merges will have to be changed anyway (from master to release-25.11) so until that time why not directly merge master into staging-25.11? | 15:13:27 | |
In reply to @leona:leona.isIt certainly should. I only talking about -next | 15:13:58 | |
| * It certainly should. I'm only talking about -next | 15:15:03 | |
| I think that should be possible. The only reason why this currently works this way was me thinking of a workflow in a relatively short time | 15:16:05 | |
| 17 Nov 2025 | ||
| 06:11:44 | ||
| 23:36:50 | ||
| 18 Nov 2025 | ||
| 01:17:55 | ||
| 01:23:24 | ||
| just for documentation purposes: I'm planning to open my release notes organization PR(alphabetizing all non-highlight release notes) after release-25.11 branchoff on nov 25. After that point, anyone adding to the release notes should ensure the alphabetization is retained. | 02:47:23 | |
| also, is #461884 considered a release blocker, considering its(at least from my glance at it) large severity? | 02:48:19 | |
| * also, is #461884 considered a release blocker, considering its(at least from my glance at it) large severity? It's not in the release blockers project which is why I ask. | 02:48:29 | |
| Can't speak for release managers but https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/461884 says this:
Considering it's a bug and the user is on x86_64-linux but emulated through rosetta. Emulation doesn't work the same usually as real hardware, especially rosetta so as long as it doesn't affect real x86_64-linux systems then I say it's not a blocker. | 02:55:57 | |
| * Can't speak for release managers but https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/461884 says this:
Considering it's a bug with argv0 and the user is on x86_64-linux but emulated through rosetta. Emulation doesn't work the same usually as real hardware, especially rosetta so as long as it doesn't affect real x86_64-linux systems then I say it's not a blocker. | 02:57:35 | |
| further down the thread theres a bug report mentioning that it effects other sorts of systems | 02:57:43 | |
Still emulated | 02:58:12 | |
| fair enough | 02:58:25 | |
| And it sounds like it's a bug with argv0 handling | 02:58:33 | |
| I haven't been affected on a real aarch64-linux system | 02:58:59 | |
| But if anyone doesn't say its a problem on real systems, I don't see why it would be a blocker | 02:59:20 | |