| 18 Nov 2025 |
 raitobezarius | namely two things | 16:58:04 |
| raitobezarius | (a) the Darwin fixes | 16:58:07 |
| raitobezarius | (b) the sysadmin guidance on tmpfs | 16:58:11 |
| raitobezarius | i did mark things that were already in 2.93.1 normally in the body, but the release notes are "raw" | 16:58:31 |
 Winter | but the release notes are "raw"
still kinda not accurate if it's in the 2.94 relnotes bc it was in 2.93...? | 16:59:06 |
| raitobezarius | 2.94 branched off 2.93.0 | 17:00:12 |
| raitobezarius | * 2.94.0 branched off 2.93.0 | 17:00:14 |
| raitobezarius | so effectively, it's a "new" thing in the 2.94 series | 17:00:21 |
| raitobezarius | but i understand what you are trying to say | 17:00:26 |
| raitobezarius | if you have an idea on how to make this better, can you open an issue? | 17:00:34 |
| raitobezarius | but ideally, a solution would take into account this branching model or mesh with the releng process | 17:00:48 |
 leona | e.g. an additional hint "We already released this as a security fix in 2.93.1"? | 17:01:49 |
| leona | sorry don't have the energy today for writing a full issue and so | 17:02:02 |
| raitobezarius | just so i understand well, we are talking about the release notes right? | 17:02:07 |
| raitobezarius | no worries | 17:02:10 |
| raitobezarius | we are not releasing every day thankfully :p | 17:02:16 |
| leona | yes | 17:02:17 |
| leona | like you could just write this sentence in the release notes for the items that were already released | 17:02:42 |
| leona | * like you could just write this sentence in the release notes for the parts that were already released | 17:02:46 |
| raitobezarius | i agree with this | 17:03:07 |
| raitobezarius | the RL were hastily merged unfortunately and we do not have a nice way to update them without point releases | 17:03:25 |
| raitobezarius | it's documented as a known issue | 17:03:32 |
| raitobezarius | ideally, this should happen automatically next time, but realistically, all we can do is to be better at running the releng process and having a checklist for that | 17:04:05 |
| raitobezarius | PR welcome in checklist here: https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/src/branch/main/releng :> | 17:04:26 |
 ShalokShalom | In reply to @522_:catgirl.cloud
does lix's readme have a mention of nixgl? yes | 17:53:19 |
 K900 | Uhh what | 17:57:25 |
| K900 | Where? | 17:57:43 |
 John Ericson | I am hoping we can agree on a new derivation format which fixes a number of issues | 18:23:44 |
| John Ericson | like versioning without central authority, and not stuff misc options in the environment variables, hijacking them | 18:24:15 |
| John Ericson | I am also interested in content-addressing of course, but it is fine if the format is merely forwards-compatible with such things | 18:24:55 |
