nixVersions.nix_2_11: init at 2.11.0

[zowoq]

Description of changes

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 22.11 Release Notes (or backporting 22.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • (Release notes changes) Ran nixos/doc/manual/md-to-db.sh to update generated release notes
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

nix-fallback-paths done in #188772

[lovesegfault]

You need to update the fallback paths too.

LGTM otherwise.

[zowoq]

You need to update the fallback paths too.

If you read the top post you'll see that this in another PR.

[lovesegfault]

You need to update the fallback paths too.

If you read the top post you'll see that this in another PR.

I'm on my phone, so it was hidden.

Just cherry-pick into this branch so they land together.

[SuperSandro2000]

You need to update the fallback paths too.

Elco always said in the past that it does not matter to much if they are merged together or not.

[bjornfor]

nixVersions.stable: 2.10 -> 2.11

Observation: If that commit was a separate PR it'd make backporting to stable easier (just label the PR).

[SuperSandro2000]

Observation: If that commit was a separate PR it'd make backporting to stable easier (just label the PR).

Then we would need to merge 3 PRs at the same time. Not very practical.

[bjornfor]

Then we would need to merge 3 PRs at the same time. Not very practical.

AFAICT it's 2 PRs, and they dont have to be merged at the same time, but we must ensure they are merged in correct order.

[zowoq]

Observation: If that commit was a separate PR it'd make backporting to stable easier (just label the PR).

• two PRs to master (must be merged in order), automated backport
• one PR to master, manual backport

So either way people still need to do two PRs except opening two on master is more complicated?

[SuperSandro2000]

but we must ensure they are merged in correct order.

I don't think that is worth it for the little convince improvement.