3 ms·

> And git! Don't get me started on git! The best minds of a generation stuck in a paradigm of downloading files to their local machine, making changes, then ema

> And git! Don't get me started on git! The best minds of a generation stuck in a paradigm of downloading files to their local machine, making changes, then emailing git pushing them up to be approved? Madness! I'm far from a seasoned user of git(hub), but the way I use it is to do a whole lot of local futzing around with a bunch of intermediate files and then only git push the final sanitised, public consumption-ready versions which aren't actually possible without the unsanitised intermediate files that I choose to keep private and local. Yeah, maybe there are access controls possible to setup for all that to make the whole enchilada "in the cloud", but why bother when you can just push the wheat and ignore the chaff? If it's all in the cloud there's more chance of accidentally exposing it to the world (which even happens with the above-described scenario).

stinkbeetle 1y ago
The diatribe appears to be sarcasm but I can't really understand what he actually advocates for. You can't "living document" source code by having a bunch of people all edit it at the same time like a google doc. And the line about git is just wrong. You don't git push something "to be approved". If you can push it then it is "approved" to wherever you pushed it to. Storing data on your own computer is a security risk sure. There are places that prohibit checking out source code locally. That has nothing to do with git though, in fact those places generally tend to still use git. Which is a database for your files and changes. You just need non-local computers to edit, compile, test, etc. Which is entirely possible.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  I am not going to take it sarcasm. I will take it quite literally for the nonsense that it is. Sarcasm is a subjective label that has no objectivity, and so it is best if discarded when not made explicit.
  - bccdee 1y ago
    Well I guess that's okay if you're not interested in understanding what other people are saying. Anyway, if you're looking for total objectivity, I'd suggest that you avoid interpreting things other people say altogether. Conversational English is an extremely subjective language.
    - aaron695 1y ago
      [dead]

stinkbeetle 1y ago

The diatribe appears to be sarcasm but I can't really understand what he actually advocates for. You can't "living document" source code by having a bunch of people all edit it at the same time like a google doc. And the line about git is just wrong. You don't git push something "to be approved". If you can push it then it is "approved" to wherever you pushed it to. Storing data on your own computer is a security risk sure. There are places that prohibit checking out source code locally. That has nothing to do with git though, in fact those places generally tend to still use git. Which is a database for your files and changes. You just need non-local computers to edit, compile, test, etc. Which is entirely possible.

OutOfHere 1y ago
I am not going to take it sarcasm. I will take it quite literally for the nonsense that it is. Sarcasm is a subjective label that has no objectivity, and so it is best if discarded when not made explicit.
- bccdee 1y ago
  Well I guess that's okay if you're not interested in understanding what other people are saying. Anyway, if you're looking for total objectivity, I'd suggest that you avoid interpreting things other people say altogether. Conversational English is an extremely subjective language.
  - aaron695 1y ago
    [dead]