| 6 Sep 2025 |
 delroth | jade_: deployed the meilisearch change to git.lix.systems, please test and report on the infra PR | 04:22:59 |
| delroth | my quick testing seems to show that search works at least as good as before but I don't know what the bad cases you were hitting are :) | 04:23:25 |
| delroth | * my quick testing seems to show that search works at least as well as before but I don't know what the bad cases you were hitting are :) | 04:23:32 |
 aloisw | Should we backport the code owners to the release branches? | 09:02:55 |
|  SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) changed their display name from SomeoneSerge (Ever OOMed by Element) to SomeoneSerge (@nixcon & back on matrix). | 09:24:26 |
| aloisw | If I read https://buildkite.com/lix-project/lix correctly, the last build was on August 29th. So there indeed seems to be an outage. | 09:57:19 |
| aloisw | emily The nixpkgs bump backports are finished now and your changes rebased. I have verified that the heads build on my machine (x86_64-linux). However I'm not sure I haven't missed anything, we will know after the CI outage has been resolved I guess. | 12:18:38 |
 emily | oh, I am sorry to have induced you to spend effort on that, because I think on the Nixpkgs end we just established that we don't need to worry about keeping 2.91 and so on… | 12:55:14 |
| emily | which is a relief | 12:55:19 |
| emily | I was going to say the team should figure out whether 2.92 is staying too before we spend more effort on the backports. cc raitobezarius? | 12:55:36 |
| emily | (obviously 2.91 should get security support until the end of the year anyway since it's still default on 25.05, but it looks like we can drop whatever from unstable safely) | 12:56:01 |
 raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | DNS resolution issues, this was fixed some hours ago | 12:56:08 |
| emily | (so no need to worry about the toml11 bump for versions being dropped) | 12:56:14 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | I'd rather to do without 2.92 but I cannot keep track about what wolfgangwalther has settled on | 12:56:21 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | I did promise them that I would take care of security backports for that release until 25.11 is out, if I remember well | 12:56:47 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | Alright | 12:57:12 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | Yeah, I think we should drop 2.92 as well | 12:57:21 |
| emily | well I replied and we established that what versions exist on unstable is irrelevant for upgrade compatibility | 12:57:37 |
| emily | (because you care about bug-compatibility of dependency closures, so you really just have to pin the old Nixpkgs if you want to validate that) | 12:57:55 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | I did see that reply but I didn't see a clear TLDR consensus | 12:57:56 |
| emily | ok I'll reply again summarizing what I understand the consensus to be now :P | 12:58:05 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | If you tell me that consensus has been reached on that position, all good | 12:58:07 |
| aloisw | 2.91 is the default in 25.05 so it needs to stay anyway. | 12:58:10 |
| aloisw | ("stay" as in "supported upstream" in case it's not clear) | 12:58:41 |
| emily | it doesn't need to stay in unstable | 12:58:41 |
| emily | which is the only place getting the toml11 bump | 12:58:48 |
| emily | IOW, you have to security-support (2.91 on 25.05), but not (2.91 on 25.11) | 12:58:57 |
| emily | so changes in libraries in 25.11 are irrelevant, which is what my toml11 series is about | 12:59:09 |
| emily | in this case this is a significantly lower burden | 12:59:19 |
| aloisw | OTOH the main effort was backporting the bumps to 25.05 which is probably not a bad idea anyway as they are supported for that nixpkgs release. | 12:59:54 |
