code-cursor: 0.49.6 -> 0.50.5

[Prince213]

Release notes: https://www.cursor.com/changelog

Closes #408238.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• 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/)
• Nixpkgs 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 Nixpkgs Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
• NixOS 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 NixOS Release notes)
  • (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
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[Prince213]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review-gha

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 408257

Logs: https://github.com/Prince213/nixpkgs-review-gha/actions/runs/15092988455

---

x86_64-linux (sandbox = true)

✅ 1 package built:

• code-cursor

---

aarch64-linux (sandbox = true)

✅ 1 package built:

• code-cursor

---

x86_64-darwin (sandbox = true)

✅ 1 package built:

• code-cursor

---

aarch64-darwin (sandbox = true)

✅ 1 package built:

• code-cursor

[aspauldingcode]

Looks fine to me. :) excited to have a co-maintainer!

[sarahec]

Closes #408766

[sarahec]

LGTM. You may want to bump this to 0.50.5 via the update script.

[sarahec]

(Just because I left the maintainers list doesn't mean I won't help you out when I can.)

[aspauldingcode]

LGTM. You may want to bump this to 0.50.5 via the update script.

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said cursor has a quick release window/cycle.

[aspauldingcode]

TYSM. Looks good!

[sarahec]

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said cursor has a quick release window/cycle.

It's one of the things that drove me nuts. They used to drop updates far too quickly and they'd usually be broken, needing another immediate update. That model doesn't work well with nix where people expect stability.

The cursor team has become much more disciplined. They started differentiating between stable and prerelease ("latest" in the api). On the other hand, people will demand that you give them the prereleases; it's a bad idea and I hope you two can resist the temptation. Remain on stable, even if prerelease dangles tantalizing treats before your eyes, and life will be much easier.

P.S. The reason I left as a maintainer is I was tired of being bombarded by requests (usually for the latest unstable, or to support some weird configuration) by people who weren't willing to do the work. Have good boundaries and hold to them.

[sarahec]

One more note about "latest" (prerelease) vs. "stable" in the API. Their paid support works with the stable releases only. You can also give a new stqable release a week or two to settle then backport it to release-25.05.

[Prince213]

Would it better if we have two package "code-cursor" and "code-cursor-latest"?

[sarahec]

Would it better if we have two package "code-cursor" and "code-cursor-latest"?

I've thought about that before. They don't have a consistent "rolling" branch established so "stable" could get ahead of "latest".

You'd also have the same problem that early cursor had: shipping a release and shipping the next one before the first had ever made it through hydra. Then you get people mad at you for not shipping the absolute latest. You also piss off the core maintainers who would (eventually) merge your PR -- many of them aren't fond of closed-source to begin with, let again releases that change every few days.

How much time are you willing to spend maintaining this? I used to be on the forums daily as well as responding to bugs and working to improve the derivation and updateScript. In the past five months, I've probably spent three months of that keeping this package going. (That's three months of 100% working time.) If you move from "stable" to "latest", you can expect to spend that kind of time.

If somebody really wants to run the latest prerelease, nix can be configured to run an AppImage directly.

If I were you, I would focus on developing the relationships and understanding the communications channels so you can get this merged right after an update.

[Bad3r]

is it 'normal' for code-cursor.passthru.tests on x86_64-darwin to take over 6 days to complete?

[sarahec]

is it 'normal' for code-cursor.passthru.tests on x86_64-darwin to take over 6 days to complete?

There are no passthru tests in this derivation. Something else must be hanging that builder.

[Prince213]

Interesting, GitHub says it's 'Queued — Waiting to run this check...'

[Prince213]

Thanks!

[sarahec]

FYI, there's a progress tracker for PRs: https://nixpk.gs/pr-tracker.html?pr=408257