[02:30] *** nine left
[02:35] *** nine joined
[16:46] *** Geth joined
[16:49] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/moar-gdb-rrdb: 47 commits pushed by (Timo Paulssen)++

[16:49] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/moar-gdb-rrdb: review: https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/compare/b0ec3382b1e6...998945aa4a99

[16:49] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/moar-gdb-rrdb: 0caad5522f | (Timo Paulssen)++ | tools/libmoar.so-gdb.py

[16:49] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/moar-gdb-rrdb: gdb plugin: remove leftover commented debug statements

[16:49] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/moar-gdb-rrdb: review: https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/commit/0caad5522f

[16:57] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM: timo++ created pull request #2025: general GDB plugin improvements + prototype of `moar rrdb` command

[16:57] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM: review: https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/2025

[16:59] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/moar-gdb-rrdb: 882974ad91 | (Timo Paulssen)++ | docs/ChangeLog

[16:59] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/moar-gdb-rrdb: Changelog entry for gdb plugin work

[16:59] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/moar-gdb-rrdb: review: https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/commit/882974ad91

[17:00] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/main: 49 commits pushed by (Timo Paulssen)++

[17:00] <Geth> ¦ MoarVM/main: review: https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/compare/a49d999ad29b...882974ad912c

[17:00] <timo> merry christmas i guess? :)

[17:09] <[Coke]> ... I'm kind of concerned that we just got 50 commits to main days before the release

[17:10] <[Coke]> how many point releases have I had to do this year so far?

[17:10] <timo> i addressed this concern in the pull request

[17:10] <timo> > Since the gdb plugin is fully optional, and problems with it are unlikely to actually cause issues, and the only other change in this PR is in a debug helper function you would have to call by hand, I have decided that merging this without a full review just before the release is not an issue.

[17:10] <[Coke]> did you assign me to the PR so I could review it before you applied it?

[17:11] <timo> i promise you the PR is harmless :)

[17:11] <[Coke]> Why does no one *talk to the release manager* about these things?

[17:11] <lizmat> [Coke]: good point

[17:12] <lizmat> shall I bump NQP / Rakudo to get some CI going?   or are you thinking of skipping these commits for the release ?

[17:12] <[Coke]> I need more time to consider.

[17:13] <timo> https://irclogs.raku.org/moarvm/2026-07-01.html#22:49-0009

[17:13] <[Coke]> Don't bother bumping them yet in case I decide against.

[17:13] <lizmat> yup, understood

[17:14] <timo> to be fair, that was not so close to the release

[17:14] <[Coke]> and did you get an answer?

[17:15] <timo> next day i got a "timo++" from lizmat and a "go ahead!" from patrick

[17:15] <lizmat> timo: the point is that the release manager is supposed to to a blin run....   and your merge basically made the last blin runs meaningless  :-(

[17:16] <timo> it does, even though the changes are nonfunctional?

[17:16] <lizmat> so, my ++ was for then...  now I would have said,  "++ but wait until after the release"

[17:16] <[Coke]> there are changes to the src folder.

[17:17] <lizmat> thing is, I also have been guilty of pushing things I thought were harmless just before a release... only to find out they weren't

[17:17] <[Coke]> not just the plugin

[17:17] <timo> indeed, that's the debug helper function i've mentioned in the comment

[17:17] <timo> that code is unreachable except when you connect a debugger and call it by hand

[17:18] <[Coke]> ok.

[17:18] <timo> sorry for giving you a heart attack there

[17:18] <[Coke]> Color me "incredibly frustrated" and we'll see if any issues on release day

[17:19] <[Coke]> also please see my note in #raku-dev

[17:20] <timo> sorry again

[17:22] <timo> your work is greatly appreciated

[17:23] <timo> if you prefer, you can revert the merge, or I can do it

[17:23] <[Coke]> Just leave it

[17:24] <[Coke]> Thanks for the work on it.

[17:27] <timo> I hope it can benefit end users, GDBing moar can be frightening, but this can make some things a lot nicer

[17:48] <timo> [Coke]: where did you see the failed checks? for me it shows all green for the PR's checks

[17:52] <timo> could be from the second-to-last commit where the checks were aborted because i pushed the next one soon after?

[18:01] <[Coke]> timo: checked again from the top level, it's fine, updated my comment. Thanks for the follouwp