| 23 Jun 2023 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | Well, about time then | 10:32:46 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | Or are we going to break people's stuff at a whim | 10:32:56 |
 Alyssa Ross | that's what "unstable" means | 10:33:04 |
| Alyssa Ross | and in fact, we're not breaking anything, we're just adding warnings | 10:33:23 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | Unstable means "let's break stable for everyone who cares about unstable"? | 10:33:32 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | that can't be right | 10:33:34 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | if we want nixpkgs to be a drag on third party maintainers, then that's how you do it | 10:34:08 |
| Alyssa Ross | I'm sympathetic to the idea that we should not add warnings to functions that are the only option on stable, but it's certainly not a widespread existing convention. | 10:34:10 |
| Alyssa Ross | And it has downsides for Nixpkgs maintainability — it turns an atomic change into a six month long project. | 10:34:35 |
| Alyssa Ross | What if we backported the new functions, without a warning? | 10:35:00 |
| Alyssa Ross | And then added the warning on unstable? | 10:35:07 |
| Alyssa Ross | It would be a totally valid backport, because it would be entirely additive. | 10:35:33 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | That's still not atomic, so I wouldn't bother with shortening the deprecation window | 10:36:17 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | With the communication skills of an average nixpkgs contributor I wouldn't count on that going well | 10:37:24 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | Good thing we're all above average | 10:37:29 |
| Alyssa Ross | I don't understand what you're saying | 10:37:38 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | I guess nobody maintains third party packages | 10:37:51 |
| Alyssa Ross | What? | 10:37:57 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | Let's discuss this at a later time | 10:37:58 |
| Alyssa Ross | that might be wise | 10:38:13 |
