| 17 Apr 2026 |
 Gaétan Lepage | SomeoneSerge (matrix works sometimes) do you think we can get this in today?
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/498612#issuecomment-4266520526
It's be nice to have it as part as 26.05 and the window closes by tomorrow | 09:31:18 |
 SomeoneSerge (matrix works sometimes) | These changes are backportable | 12:59:28 |
| SomeoneSerge (matrix works sometimes) | * | 12:59:47 |
| Gaétan Lepage | Sure, but it'd be easier to merge them now (if they're ready ofc)c | 13:11:32 |
| Gaétan Lepage | * Sure, but it'd be easier to merge them now (if they're ready ofc) | 13:11:34 |
| 18 Apr 2026 |
 ccicnce113424 | Actually, the window doesn't close until 2026-04-27 07:00 UTC, so we've still got a few days, not "tomorrow". That said, I think this PR is ready to merge right now. | 09:03:52 |
| 20 Apr 2026 |
 Edward Tjörnhammar | You risk breaking HPC deployments with these changes | 09:05:45 |
| Edward Tjörnhammar | * You risk breaking HPC deployments with these changes, rushing them without further confirmations is reckless | 09:07:42 |
| Edward Tjörnhammar | * You risk breaking HPC deployments with these changes, rushing them without further confirmations is reckless | 09:08:01 |
| ccicnce113424 | @[Edward Tjörnhammar] I'm not rushing anything. I didn't touch the HPC-specific logic, and the PR is literally open for review. I've already replied to all your concerns in the PR comments. If you genuinely believe HPC is broken by these changes, please quote the exact lines of code on GitHub that cause the issue. Let's keep the discussion technical and factual. | 09:40:13 |
| ccicnce113424 | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/498612#issuecomment-4279399845 | 09:43:58 |
| ccicnce113424 | * @[Edward Tjörnhammar] I'm NOT rushing anything. I didn't touch the HPC-specific logic, and the PR is literally open for review. I've already replied to all your concerns in the PR comments. If you genuinely believe HPC is broken by these changes, please quote the exact lines of code on GitHub that cause the issue. Let's keep the discussion technical and factual. | 09:58:20 |
| Edward Tjörnhammar | In reply to @ccicnce113424:matrix.org
@[Edward Tjörnhammar] I'm NOT rushing anything. I didn't touch the HPC-specific logic, and the PR is literally open for review. I've already replied to all your concerns in the PR comments. If you genuinely believe HPC is broken by these changes, please quote the exact lines of code on GitHub that cause the issue. Let's keep the discussion technical and factual. That would be great, I said you risk breaking HPC deployments not that it was a fact, the concerns in my review are my technical and factual concerns. That you adressed my concerns were my main priority since you seemed to want to get this in within the merge window. I will take another look tonight. | 10:38:07 |
|  Moraxyc joined the room. | 12:36:07 |
|  caniko changed their profile picture. | 14:19:45 |
| 21 Apr 2026 |
| Gaétan Lepage | Hi Samuel Ainsworth!
I'm having yet another hash mismatch on xla:
error: hash mismatch in fixed-output derivation '/nix/store/r97i94lw0gyqi8x1z7w0f65v8p8hwlyr-xla-0-unstable-2026-02-21-deps.tar.drv':
specified: sha256-QTUqcP5t91Z4s+esxxFz2tGJAJplWXWZuYPqcC7ld+E=
got: sha256-go2EUhzSI2LcvYTjkrj3nbbwiLSusuj2Ijh6rlcarqE=
| 20:51:35 |
| 4 Aug 2022 |
|  Winter (she/her) joined the room. | 03:26:42 |
| Winter (she/her) | (hi, just came here to read + respond to this.) | 03:28:52 |
 tpw_rules | hey. i had previously sympathzied with samuela and like i said before had some of the same frustrations. i just edited my github comment to add "[CUDA] packages are universally complicated, fragile to package, and critical to daily operations. Nix being able to manage them is unbelievably helpful to those of us who work with them regularly, even if support is downgraded to only having an expectation of function on stable branches." | 03:29:14 |
| Winter (she/her) | In reply to @tpw_rules:matrix.org
i'm mildly peeved about a recent merging of something i maintain where i'm pretty sure the merger does not own the expensive hardware required to properly test the package. i don't think it broke anything but i was given precisely 45 minutes to see the notification before somebody merged it ugh, 45 minutes? that's... not great. not to air dirty laundry but did you do what samuela did in the wandb PR and at least say that that wasn't a great thing to do? (not sure how else to word that, you get what i mean) | 03:30:23 |
| tpw_rules | no, i haven't yet, but i probably will | 03:31:03 |
| Winter (she/her) | i admittedly did that with a PR once, i forget how long the maintainer was requested for but i merged it because multiple people reported it fixed the issue. the maintainer said "hey, don't do that" after and now i do think twice before merging. so it could help, is what i'm saying. | 03:31:50 |
| tpw_rules | i'm not sure what went wrong with the wandb PR anyway, i think it was just a boneheaded move on the maintainer's part | 03:32:10 |
| 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 |
