Forgejo v9 #346873
Forgejo v9 #346873
Conversation
ofborg
bot
requested review from
emilylange,
adamcstephens,
urandom2 and
bendlas
| @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ | |||
| Users can use it by `services.displayManager.ly.enable` and config it by | |||
| `services.displayManager.ly.settings` to generate `/etc/ly/config.ini` | |||
|
|
|||
| - `forgejo` has been upgraded to version 9.0, see the [release notes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/milestone/7235). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I lean towards moving that release note entry out of the "Highlights" section into the "Backward Incompatibilities" further down below where we already have two entries for Forgejo.
So all of them are side by side.
Well and jumping from v7 (forgejo in 24.05) to v9 are technically two major updates with breakages.
But let me know what you think -- open to discuss :)
We could also use that opportunity to mention forgejo-lts somewhere. Which is something we wanted to do a while ago but postponed so far.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree it's probably worth moving to the Backward Incompat section.
Maybe something like
services.foregejo.packagenow defaults toforgejo-lts, the Long Term Support version of Forgejo. The latest version can be selected by settingservices.forejo.package = pkgs.forgejo, with the understanding that this package could have breaking changes during the life of a stable NixOS release.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I lean towards moving that release note entry out of the "Highlights" section into the "Backward Incompatibilities" further down below where we already have two entries for Forgejo.
So all of them are side by side.
sounds like a good idea.
Well and jumping from v7 (forgejo in 24.05) to v9 are technically two major updates with breakages.
Right, we should mention that as well.
with the understanding that this package could have breaking changes during the life of a stable NixOS release.
Wouldn't it be better to introduce e.g. forgejo_9, so it's a bit more explicit to upgrade? Not sure how to handle this after EOL, just a thought.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was discussed in #331187 but there are only ever two releases of forgejo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mean if v10 releases, you probably don't want an upgrade without explicitly upgrading, while being on stable.
So my thought was to have forgejo_9, remove that once it's EOL and introduce forgejo_10 once it releases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If a user has changed from the default LTS version, I personally consider that explicit opting in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we want to revisit the naming decision again, let's do so in another PR.
Forgejo v9 is now licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later. Release notes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/milestone/7235
|
This needs to be moved to the release version so we can get it in. There is no overlap of support with v8. |
Things done
Upgrades forgejo to v9 pre-release.
Forgejo v9 releases on 16th October.
See https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/5380
Release Notes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/milestone/7235
Also added myself as a maintainer :)
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.