| 22 Dec 2025 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | helle (just a stray cat girl): oh ok, what for? Is it a blocker? | 08:57:00 |
 raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | roberth already pulled the ≥0.5 support patch | 08:57:09 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | oops, s/involves/involved | 08:57:54 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | * Hey 👋, I'm upgrading mdbook in Nixpkgs. This involved pulling Lix's patch for this. I've made sure that Lix builds with it. Should be boring, but I'd like to make sure the change is ok with y'all. https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/467009 | 08:58:04 |
 helle (just a stray cat girl) | ah, nice, missed that, sorry | 08:58:29 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | still waking up | 08:58:35 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | my bad :) | 08:58:36 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | I'm running smoketesting, roberth on your PR, once this passes, I will approve as a Lix code owner | 08:59:09 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | awesome, thanks! | 08:59:20 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | thanks for pulling the patch! | 08:59:28 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | but yes, ty, I read the message like crossways, lol | 09:02:01 |
|  @cinerealkiara:matrix.org left the room. | 10:53:47 |
| 23 Dec 2025 |
 piegames | Hm. Unfortunately, the Nix language is not amenable to single-parse-pass compilation because of parsetime attrset merging | 09:56:00 |
| piegames | Everything else can be done with placeholders and a fixup pass afterwards, but attrsets really require using some treemaps during construction | 09:56:40 |
| piegames | Also let's move this over to Zulip https://zulip.lix.systems/#narrow/channel/6-Eval/topic/Parser.20rewrite/with/3389 | 10:36:24 |
 XYenon | Should I do anything now, or just wait? My CL hasn't had any new reviews for a week.
https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/4783 | 13:44:10 |
| piegames | Asking here is fine | 14:10:07 |
| piegames | Oh I see, there has been a disagreement between reviewers. Maybe we should escalate it to a core team discusssion then | 14:11:59 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | where? | 14:15:48 |
| piegames | The CL has both +1 and -1 reviews | 14:18:02 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | is that not just purely for the test impl | 14:18:14 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | i think you are misreading the reviews | 14:18:13 |
| piegames | Or am I reading it wrongly (I'm on the phone so lol@Gerrit UI) | 14:18:19 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | +1 was given over the F2 part | 14:18:40 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | -1 was given over the actual contents | 14:18:46 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | * -1 was given over the non testing changes | 14:18:49 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | anyway, this stalled because:
(a) flakes are frozen in principle and we recommend reaching out here before sending changes
(b) selected reviewers did not interact with the CL
(c) it's holidays for many people :P | 14:19:59 |
| XYenon | Get it. I thought this was just a small backport change. | 14:47:52 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | No worries, unfortunately, as we touched upon it in https://lix.systems/blog/2025-11-18-lix-2.94-release/ (section "Flakes freeze"), too many inconsistences kept being discovered in how these features are rolled in CppNix | 14:49:37 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | And as you have seen, horrors flagged such a problem on that backport, alas | 14:49:57 |
