| 31 Mar 2025 |
 John Ericson | * nix/util/<name>.hh here we come, no force-include config bullshit, and separation of implementation-detail-only vs external-API/-affecting configuration variables woo! | 20:25:43 |
 ElvishJerricco | To me, I think the ideal solution here is to push all of this back until after 25.05 branchoff. That way 25.05 gets the new Nix version and doesn't require experimental packaging. After branchoff, we can go back to the componentized build and we'll have the length of an entire release cycle to iterate on it and make it ready for 25.11 | 20:28:26 |
| John Ericson | ElvishJerricco: So you are saying do 2.28, but with the monopackage? | 20:31:04 |
| ElvishJerricco | yea | 20:31:12 |
| ElvishJerricco | I don't have any issue with the nix version being bumped for 25.05, though leona expressed some concern about it. My issue is with the packaging expressions making it to the default nix in 25.05 | 20:32:21 |
| John Ericson | ElvishJerricco: Yeah, not gonna lie 2.28 in Nixpkgs alone is way better than 2.24 | 20:35:10 |
| John Ericson | I would be fine falling back to that at the first sign of trouble | 20:35:44 |
| John Ericson | but I'm pretty confident the issues are not human not machine? Like while the code needs tto be made legible, but it is working now. | 20:36:17 |
| John Ericson | the touchiest part is the package that combines the other packages | 20:36:59 |
| John Ericson | but as I bump things, I hope to make them not use that | 20:37:06 |
| John Ericson | (e.g. if you need a library, just depend on that library) | 20:37:18 |
| John Ericson | so the exposure of the "everything" package should go down down down | 20:37:31 |
| John Ericson | (for 25.11, I would love to move it to aliases, even) | 20:37:42 |
 emily | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
I don't have any issue with the nix version being bumped for 25.05, though leona expressed some concern about it. My issue is with the packaging expressions making it to the default nix in 25.05 even aside from packaging concerns we really do try to avoid major bumps of critical components close to release | 20:38:16 |
| emily | and Nix updates have often been comparably or more painful compared to e.g. major compiler bumps | 20:38:46 |
| emily | i will comment again later once I am no longer on phone keyboard | 20:39:03 |
| ElvishJerricco | I think the fact that Nix is a core component of the OS is a good reason that it should be bumped. We want the default version to be one that's more actively maintained, which a newer version like 2.27 or 2.28 would be. | 20:40:42 |
| emily | it's not going to be the latest for long. the Nix team policy is supporting the latest version and the one in stable Nixpkgs | 20:43:19 |
| John Ericson | emily: I think we've done fairly little feature-behavior churn since 2.24 | 20:43:23 |
| emily | which is their decision of course but it shouldn't impact Nixpkgs release cycle decisions | 20:43:37 |
| John Ericson | like, because we've been busy with this stuff, the actual behavior Nix is relatively unchunged | 20:43:47 |
| John Ericson | so I would expect a good bit less behavior difference than e.g. that between 2.18 -> 2.24 | 20:44:17 |
| John Ericson | roberth's been dogfooding new Nix, and I plan to in a moment too | 20:44:53 |
 raitobezarius | didn't output path calculation change between 2.24 and 2.28 again? | 20:45:25 |
| emily | the only way we're going to avoid the 2.18 logjam repeating over and over is if the Nix team actually puts in the effort to communicate proactively with Nixpkgs processes and take the concerns seriously rather than throwing things over the wall last minute. as so often, it's about communication. Tom's comment claimed that 2.24 would remain the default only a few hours ago before being edited | 20:45:30 |
| emily | if this had been talked about earlier the concerns could have been raised and timing could have been discussed. when I tried to use the new packaging only weeks ago it wasn't in a state to even be nixVersions.latest | 20:46:17 |
| John Ericson | Nix in Nixpkgs would have already been bumped except for the packaging churn, so there is a bit of a tangled causality here | 20:46:19 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | not that I know of. Where would that be? | 20:46:59 |
| emily | that's your prioritization decision though... | 20:47:04 |
| emily | this is why upstream=downstream is fraught at the best of times. the incentives are just not the same | 20:47:26 |
