| 23 Sep 2025 |
 vcunat | I can't speak for the 25.11 team, but it's called .11 for November, so if you still do ZHF on the last of November, you can't manage to release during November. | 08:08:02 |
| vcunat | It's no huge deal to release later (I'd say); it happens sometimes that it gets delayed from the plans by a week or two and thus gets into the next month. | 08:09:23 |
| vcunat | But to plan in advance that we won't make it in November - sounds unusual to me. | 08:09:50 |
 leona | I'd personally really like to have a week to spare, just because for me it's cool to actually release in the month we planned for and also with winter holidays, I think it's good to leave people a week or two more to update their systems before everyone is on vacation. | 08:11:01 |
| vcunat | Either way, lots of failures on Hydra tend to remain even on the day of release. | 08:11:01 |
| vcunat | * Either way, lots of failures on Hydra tend to remain even on the day of release, so you'll surely be able to find some work to do. | 08:11:30 |
| leona | I see no problem for you fixing build issues after the release tho. Backports are quite possible | 08:11:37 |
|  kenji changed their display name from a-kenji to kenji. | 10:38:57 |
| 24 Sep 2025 |
 john-rodewald | In reply to @ners:nixos.dev
Hey everyone! Thanks for the announcement.
I have a bit of a predicament: I organise ZHF hackathons before every release (https://zurich.nix.ug/), and sadly the venue we use could only offer us 29-30 November 2025 for this cycle.
This falls out of the proposed ZHF campaign, so it'll be quite a miserable ZHF.
I know it's a long-shot, but would there be any chance of moving the release forward a week? We found a different solution. No more need to change around any release dates. :) | 19:00:10 |
| 26 Sep 2025 |
|  tornax joined the room. | 08:51:24 |
| 27 Sep 2025 |
|  BerriJ joined the room. | 12:12:47 |
|  yapxuan joined the room. | 20:21:53 |
| 28 Sep 2025 |
| tornax | Hi! May I ask if the new crowdsec module may not be added to stable for the next release (yet) please? It feels like as if there is still some work to do (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/446307). So I'd like to keep its config as unstable for the time being. | 19:08:33 |
| tornax | * Hi! May I ask if the new crowdsec module may not be added to stable for the next release (yet) please (just in case if that's going to happen)? It feels like as if there is still some work to do (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/446307). So I'd like to keep its config as unstable for the time being. | 19:08:55 |
| vcunat | If you keep the PR as draft until the 25.11 fork-off happens... | 19:54:49 |
| 29 Sep 2025 |
 Sandro 🐧 | It is technically not possible to exclude the module from the release unless we remove it again.
But I don't see a problem backporting the fix PR whenever it is ready. | 13:25:01 |
|  @brian:bmcgee.ie left the room. | 13:40:19 |
| leona | This depends a bit on how the fix PR actually works. For it to be backportable, it would be good to allow for a seamless transition | 15:39:02 |
| leona | but also it's correct what Sandro said, that there is no technical possibility to remove the module from the release. We could ofc remove the module directly after branch-off, but this also feels a bit strange | 15:39:43 |
| Sandro 🐧 | The module is pretty new and so far it does not really work out of the box. So I would just say that it is fine to Backport even if it is breaking. Just my opinion though. | 15:41:27 |
| 30 Sep 2025 |
|  Lun joined the room. | 14:01:39 |
| 2 Oct 2025 |
 jficz | Hi! What can I do to have this mautrix-whatsapp module backport PR merged? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/446155
It's manual because of merge conflicts but otherwise equal to the original PR. | 19:29:33 |
 SigmaSquadron | Would it be possible to cherry-pick the original commits instead of making new ones? | 22:23:01 |
| jficz | In reply to @sigmasquadron:matrix.org
Would it be possible to cherry-pick the original commits instead of making new ones? That's what the bot tried to do but failed because of conflicts. I don't think it's possible to do it cleanly. | 22:35:24 |
| SigmaSquadron | You should still cherry-pick manually and edit the cherry-picks. | 22:45:07 |
| 3 Oct 2025 |
| jficz | ok, I'll try again but I did exactly that I believe (as suggested here, except yes, I somehow managed to base it against master so I rebased against release after that) | 20:57:29 |
| jficz | * ok, I'll try again but I did exactly that I believe (as suggested here, except yes, I somehow managed to base it against master at first so I rebased against release after that) | 20:58:43 |
|  moleksiak joined the room. | 23:30:58 |
| 4 Oct 2025 |
 dish [Fox/It/She] | Something to consider for now/future releases: Something a la the "Release Blockers" thread, but for things that are intended to be cleaned up post-branchoff. I've found a lot of stuff that was intended to be removed in 25.05 or 25.11, but hasn't been yet, so having a central place to track those sorts of things, so that there's a single checklist of items would be good. Obviously, maintainers of packages would be the ones adding things to it, but it's something to think about for the future, maybe? | 02:28:45 |
| leona | it might be, otherwise I don't know how helpful a tracking issue would be. We already have the label 2.status: wait for branch-off for PRs and issues that are blocked. I feel like a tracking issue is only really helpful when multiple people (and not just the maintainers of the respective module or package) can work on the issues. But also just my idea
Personally, I more like the idea for reducing the time where breaking changes are restricted by branching off earlier, but this would possibly require more energy and especially Hydra capacity, that we currently don't have. This idea was already mentioned last release cycle by multiple people, but IMO currently not actionable
| 07:45:33 |
