| 7 May 2025 |
 Yureka (she/her) | Hi!
I wanted to ch | 10:46:32 |
| Yureka (she/her) | * | 10:46:47 |
| Yureka (she/her) | (if any at all) | 10:46:55 |
 leona | this was my idea to have a beta period while still before branch-off. This is not really sensible anymore with the current timing also it might confuse tooling to have a pre->beta->pre switch on master. beta will now be with the branch-off as with the previous release | 10:48:47 |
| leona | We might need to search for something better for the next release | 10:48:55 |
| Yureka (she/her) | So, now the beta will start with the branchoff? | 10:49:15 |
| leona | ye | 10:49:21 |
| leona | * yes | 10:49:22 |
| Yureka (she/her) | thanks! In case anyone else was confused about it, could you add back a row "start of beta period (moved from 2025-05-dd)" in the table? | 10:51:30 |
| leona | will do | 10:51:43 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | Now that staging has unrestricted changes, PRs need backport staging-25.05, no? We do not have that branch/tag yet | 14:56:43 |
| leona | Good question. The release-wiki says that the staging-25.05 branch will be created with branch-off. But I agree that this feels off | 15:14:19 |
| 8 May 2025 |
|  jibz joined the room. | 17:55:50 |
| 9 May 2025 |
|  pzka joined the room. | 18:28:07 |
| 10 May 2025 |
 Sandro 🐧 | Any thoughts about https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/404514 ? | 12:17:13 |
 Alyssa Ross | Doesn't look like it has any release management impact | 12:17:55 |
| Sandro 🐧 | I didn't know if it could have breaking impact | 12:22:26 |
| Sandro 🐧 | Works for me on my few machines but no idea if it is too late | 12:22:39 |
| Alyssa Ross | Looks very unlikely to be breaking | 12:27:30 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | Its optional and defaults to old behavior, so even if it were breaking noone would be using it yet. Looks fine. | 13:04:06 |
| 11 May 2025 |
| Sandro 🐧 | nice, thanks all | 02:21:04 |
 SigmaSquadron | There's a low-impact module removal on #406192. The freeze has already happened, so technically we can't remove modules anymore, but at the same time, we can't really ship an unmaintained module. | 16:14:39 |
 emily | I'm a little confused as to the motivation of the removal. (but it's their decision to stop maintaining it) | 16:26:35 |
 ma27 | I'm even more confused on why this got ever accepted (let alone proposed) fwiw. | 16:29:46 |
| emily | because the packages aren't split, or because it takes ownership of Nginx config, or? | 16:31:09 |
| ma27 | I'm talking about:
This was more of a test for me, where I wanted to create a complex project and handle the whole local development, deployment and distribution process with Nix and NixOS, to learn more about it and see how far I could go with it
This sounds like a questionable rationale for putting something into nixpkgs tbh | 16:33:13 |
| emily | right. well, the original PR doesn't show any sign of that :) it just looks like a "fairly" normal package/service | 16:33:34 |
| emily | hence my confusion | 16:33:38 |
| emily | well… I see some sign of why the contributor might not want to maintain it there. though the months gap still confuses me | 16:34:23 |
 WeetHet | What... why add it in first place if you're gonna remove it a couple months later. What do they mean by a test... | 16:52:52 |
