3 ms·
I don't know, my general rant on why all CI/CD is complete junk and everyone is cargo-culting a copy without an original in implementing it just never feels lik
by XorNot 5y ago
I don't know, my general rant on why all CI/CD is complete junk and everyone is cargo-culting a copy without an original in implementing it just never feels like something I want to post over and over again.
The entire concept of how people do code-reviews with PRs is completely broken and everyone's experienced it: when someone leaves a review, asking you to change a variable name, what is even the process? Can I just say "no"? Why didn't they with full access to the branch, just submit the commit? Or open a PR against the branch (did you know you can do that?)? Why aren't code reviews just cherry-pickable commits against branches by default? Why doesn't the PR process let me do a partial rebase as acceptance? Why does everyone do code reviews looking at diffs, when they can't possibly have enough context? (its because the tools are junk and make it difficult to do - I had an idea of doing some line number magic to do full-code commenting in gitlab review mode, but never got round to it).
Like...the situation is about as bad, we're all just salaried.
- unclebucknasty 5y agoI'm laughing because it seems every company has some variation of this kind of madness. They're like flavors. >Why didn't they with full access to the branch, just submit the commit? Or open a PR against the branch (did you know you can do that?)? As for some of these why questions, I think the answer is that they want to enforce that you follow the process. I've seen people get cartoonishly bent out of shape over exactly this kind of stuff, "you're supposed to do x!". It's part of how devs are "automated".