| 4 Aug 2022 |
Winter (she/her) | (it was also simple enough that it was fine and the maintainer said it looked good after) | 03:32:15 |
tpw_rules | * i'm not sure what went wrong with the wandb PR anyway, i think it was just a boneheaded move on the merger's part | 03:32:19 |
tpw_rules | but i thought most of the frustration was around packages which don't really involve CUDA breaking the fragile CUDA packages, and i'm not sure how the warning helps in this case. it's not like nixpkgs-review prints out the comments. maybe i'm wrong. but it is a legitimate problem | 03:34:19 |
Winter (she/her) | the frustration that i see is that people are touching packages that he maintains, am i missing further context here? | 03:35:09 |
tpw_rules | did you ever see this? https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixpkgss-current-development-workflow-is-not-sustainable/18741 | 03:35:43 |
Winter (she/her) | oh yes i did | 03:35:49 |
Winter (she/her) | but that's not what the topic of this PR/the notice is, though? | 03:36:11 |
Winter (she/her) | this wouldn't help that | 03:36:14 |
Winter (she/her) | ~~is that what you're saying and i'm just lagging behind~~ | 03:36:27 |
tpw_rules | no it wouldn't, but it reads to me like that's the underlying problem and this is a manifestation which can be controlled more easily. not to put thoughts in people's head | 03:37:07 |
Winter (she/her) | right
(what do you mean by that last sentence, you don't want to influence anyone's opinion on the matter by saying that?) | 03:38:29 |
tpw_rules | i guess? it's my personal opinion and thought and i'd appreciate comment from the man himself | 03:39:28 |
tpw_rules | i think i mixed my metaphors slightly. i don't intend to put words in his mouth | 03:40:00 |
tpw_rules | there's also this: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/185078 | 03:42:14 |
tpw_rules | it's not really fair to characterize python general package updates as "breaking everything all over again" and the notice wouldn't have prevented it. it's just sort of life as being the center of a tangled web of dependencies | 03:43:13 |
Winter (she/her) | that should be something brought up with the python folks tbh | 03:43:18 |
Winter (she/her) | exactly | 03:43:20 |
Winter (she/her) | i'm sure it can be worked around somehow, or things can be put in place | 03:43:31 |
Winter (she/her) | the python folks are trying to keep up with something so fast moving and prone to breakage, there's only so much they can do without communication | 03:44:00 |
tpw_rules | like sandro said in the issue, it feels more like there's a disconnect (which i don't know about) between the general python maintainers and cuda maintainers, and the best and most prompt solution might be to downgrade the service level | 03:44:06 |
Winter (she/her) | * the python folks are trying to keep up with something so fast moving and prone to breakage, there's only so much they can do | 03:44:09 |
Winter (she/her) | precisely yeah | 03:44:21 |
tpw_rules | i.e. focus on the packages around ZHF and accept that they're not stable and might take lots of work to get going if you follow unstable | 03:44:33 |
Winter (she/her) | (well the latter doesn't apply to samuela since he's a maintainer, so he kinda has to keep up in that regard) | 03:45:12 |
Winter (she/her) | (hope that doesn't sound rude, not trying to be) | 03:45:27 |
tpw_rules | well that's the question, does he? | 03:45:35 |
tpw_rules | there's too much value here to just give up, but the small focus and large effort might warrant saying that as the maintainer of this particular ecosystem | 03:46:38 |
tpw_rules | idk if it's simpler to sort of batch fixes like that, the hope is that these headaches will be discovered and worked out by other distros | 03:47:05 |
tpw_rules | and upstream collaboration/natural progression | 03:47:56 |
tpw_rules | maybe more of a defined maintenance interval. i saw another discussion today at automatically marking packages as broken if they don't build for 3 months and stable releases are every 6 months | 03:50:07 |