3 ms·

>the majority of its users (developers) want rolling updates for their tooling. I haven't met a single software developer who wants this. That's not to say you

>the majority of its users (developers) want rolling updates for their tooling. I haven't met a single software developer who wants this. That's not to say your statement is incorrect -- I have no evidence stating otherwise -- but the idea boggles my mind.

95014_refugee 4y ago
- Nicksil 4y ago
  >You should get out more. No offense. This is an unnecessary comment. >Incremental pain, delivered early, is both corrective and less expensive over the long run. If you need to remain version-locked for a specific reason, that reason is likely to be locally scoped rather than global, in which case TFA describes an attempt to address your problem. This rests on the assumption of a relatively homogenized software development industry without any consideration for, at least, critical systems building. There's a broad range of disciplines in this industry which do not -- and cannot -- adhere to the practices you mention.
mattarm 4y ago
cle 4y ago
A huge amount of Linux users use rolling release distributions now (Arch, Manjaro, EndeavourOS, etc). I prefer it as well because I find it less disruptive than occasional big-bang versioned releases. Where versioning matters, we have better tools than OS package managers now (ex Docker).
akerl_ 4y ago
I want rolling updates for my tooling.
spmurrayzzz 4y ago
I am also in the camp of engineers who prefer stability over bleeding edge. But I do understand folks who prefer the latter modality. If dependencies are gonna break, often its more desirable to have them break quickly with a short remedial cadence to follow. In my own anecdotal experience though, "short" is probably too charitable of a descriptor for the time to fix.
rleigh 4y ago
I'd much prefer a compromise, like the FreeBSD quarterly updates vs daily, so you can pick the update frequency. I can't tell you the total number of wasted hours my previous organisation spent upon maintaining MacOS infrastructure after random breakage due to homebrew, but it was a regular occurrence and likely a few hundreds of hours per year for the small setup we looked after, mainly for CI.
jemmyw 4y ago
For tools that I develop on I use asdf for versioning. For everything else I want the latest stable version, so homebrew works well. On Linux I use a rolling release distro for the same effect.

95014_refugee 4y ago

Nicksil 4y ago
>You should get out more. No offense. This is an unnecessary comment. >Incremental pain, delivered early, is both corrective and less expensive over the long run. If you need to remain version-locked for a specific reason, that reason is likely to be locally scoped rather than global, in which case TFA describes an attempt to address your problem. This rests on the assumption of a relatively homogenized software development industry without any consideration for, at least, critical systems building. There's a broad range of disciplines in this industry which do not -- and cannot -- adhere to the practices you mention.

mattarm 4y ago

cle 4y ago

A huge amount of Linux users use rolling release distributions now (Arch, Manjaro, EndeavourOS, etc). I prefer it as well because I find it less disruptive than occasional big-bang versioned releases. Where versioning matters, we have better tools than OS package managers now (ex Docker).

akerl_ 4y ago

I want rolling updates for my tooling.

spmurrayzzz 4y ago

I am also in the camp of engineers who prefer stability over bleeding edge. But I do understand folks who prefer the latter modality. If dependencies are gonna break, often its more desirable to have them break quickly with a short remedial cadence to follow. In my own anecdotal experience though, "short" is probably too charitable of a descriptor for the time to fix.

rleigh 4y ago

I'd much prefer a compromise, like the FreeBSD quarterly updates vs daily, so you can pick the update frequency. I can't tell you the total number of wasted hours my previous organisation spent upon maintaining MacOS infrastructure after random breakage due to homebrew, but it was a regular occurrence and likely a few hundreds of hours per year for the small setup we looked after, mainly for CI.

jemmyw 4y ago

For tools that I develop on I use asdf for versioning. For everything else I want the latest stable version, so homebrew works well. On Linux I use a rolling release distro for the same effect.