4 ms·

> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic. Ortho and grammar errors should have been correcte

> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic. Ortho and grammar errors should have been corrected, but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?

clort 8mo ago
plenty of people on the internet recognised it immediately, so sure, he may have been a rando when he created it, but not so much 15 years later..
- Freak_NL 8mo ago
  Just that tiny image on his blog was enough for me to go "oh yeah, I used his diagram to explain this type of git workflow to colleagues a decade ago". Someone should have spotted that right away.
- p_ing 8mo ago
  Did the one MSFT employee that “reviewed” it know of this image? If not, it doesn’t matter how many people “on the Internet” recognized this image. I’ll never understand the implied projection. (I don’t think this was reviewed closely if at all)
  - mcv 8mo ago
    I would hope that the person who reviews their training on gitflow, knows something about gitflow. And if you know something about gitflow, it's not that strange to expect to recognise the most iconic gitflow diagram. But even if you don't recognise the original, at least you should be able to tell that the generated copy is bullshit.
    - p_ing 8mo ago
      Again, I don't think this was reviewed. It was an assignment to a vendor 'write document and I'll hit publish'. There's a great chance the MSFT document _owner_ has no experience in the relevant area.
pointlessone 8mo ago
It’s not just a copy. It’s a caricature of a copy with a plenty of nonsense in it: typos and weird “text”, broken arrows, etc. Even a cursory look gives a feeling that something’s fishy.
- toong 8mo ago
  "Legal reviewed it and did not flag any issues!"
  - kuhaku22 8mo ago
    This is the same Microsoft that promised to indemnify any of its customers sued over copyright lawsuits as a result of using its AIs. [0] So I'm sure legal reviewed it the same way, saying "Yep, our war chest is still ample". [0]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-defend-customers-ai-copyright-challenges-2023-09-07/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-defend-customer...
- tharos47 8mo ago
  Weird text was already deemed acceptable by microsoft in their documentation as they machine translated most screenshots instead of recreating them in different locales, leading to the same problems as this image.
logifail 8mo ago
Shouldn't "where are we sourcing our content" be part of any publication review process?
- bravetraveler 8mo ago
  The Large Laundering Machine, sorry, I mean the Large Language Model! Provenance? Where's that?
sznio 8mo ago
No. I'd expect that "continvouclous morging" gets caught.
- zephen 8mo ago
  That expectation is pure covfefe.
michaelt 8mo ago
Here is the original: https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ Here is the slop copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20251205141857/https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/training/modules/introduction-to-github/3-components-of-github-flow#git-flow https://web.archive.org/web/20251205141857/https://learn.mic... The 'Time' axis points the wrong way, and is misspelled, using a non-existent letter - 'Tim' where the m has an extra hump. It's pretty clear this wasn't reviewed at all.
ahoka 8mo ago
Yes. This is expected at any serious company as intellectual property violations can have serious consequences.
beart 8mo ago
I don't think the characterization of this being a diagram from "some rando" is accurate or fair. The original content is highly influential... which should be self-evident by the fact it is being reproduced verbatim ten years later, and was immediately recognized.
NekkoDroid 8mo ago
> but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago? We aren't talking about just some random image from some random blog. The article we are talking about is about a specific topic, which when searched online one of the first is the article containing the original image (at least for google, bing seems to be really struggling to give me the article but under images it is again the first). I would cut some slack if this were a really obscure topic almost noone talks about, but it's been a thing talked about in the programmer space for ages.
computerfriend 8mo ago
Yes? It's a famous diagram, at least in the world of Git workflows, so I would expect a reviewer of Microsoft's Git workflow documentation to be familiar with it. (But the main issue is that the diagram is slop, not that it's a copy.)
GrinningFool 8mo ago
I would personally expect review to evaluate for correctness. Such a review would have stopped this from being published. This diagram as published is literal nonsense.

clort 8mo ago

plenty of people on the internet recognised it immediately, so sure, he may have been a rando when he created it, but not so much 15 years later..

Freak_NL 8mo ago
Just that tiny image on his blog was enough for me to go "oh yeah, I used his diagram to explain this type of git workflow to colleagues a decade ago". Someone should have spotted that right away.
p_ing 8mo ago
Did the one MSFT employee that “reviewed” it know of this image? If not, it doesn’t matter how many people “on the Internet” recognized this image. I’ll never understand the implied projection. (I don’t think this was reviewed closely if at all)
- mcv 8mo ago
  I would hope that the person who reviews their training on gitflow, knows something about gitflow. And if you know something about gitflow, it's not that strange to expect to recognise the most iconic gitflow diagram. But even if you don't recognise the original, at least you should be able to tell that the generated copy is bullshit.
  - p_ing 8mo ago
    Again, I don't think this was reviewed. It was an assignment to a vendor 'write document and I'll hit publish'. There's a great chance the MSFT document _owner_ has no experience in the relevant area.

pointlessone 8mo ago

It’s not just a copy. It’s a caricature of a copy with a plenty of nonsense in it: typos and weird “text”, broken arrows, etc. Even a cursory look gives a feeling that something’s fishy.

toong 8mo ago
"Legal reviewed it and did not flag any issues!"
- kuhaku22 8mo ago
  This is the same Microsoft that promised to indemnify any of its customers sued over copyright lawsuits as a result of using its AIs. [0] So I'm sure legal reviewed it the same way, saying "Yep, our war chest is still ample". [0]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-defend-customers-ai-copyright-challenges-2023-09-07/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-defend-customer...
tharos47 8mo ago
Weird text was already deemed acceptable by microsoft in their documentation as they machine translated most screenshots instead of recreating them in different locales, leading to the same problems as this image.

logifail 8mo ago

Shouldn't "where are we sourcing our content" be part of any publication review process?

bravetraveler 8mo ago
The Large Laundering Machine, sorry, I mean the Large Language Model! Provenance? Where's that?

sznio 8mo ago

No. I'd expect that "continvouclous morging" gets caught.

zephen 8mo ago
That expectation is pure covfefe.

michaelt 8mo ago

Here is the original: https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ Here is the slop copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20251205141857/https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/training/modules/introduction-to-github/3-components-of-github-flow#git-flow https://web.archive.org/web/20251205141857/https://learn.mic... The 'Time' axis points the wrong way, and is misspelled, using a non-existent letter - 'Tim' where the m has an extra hump. It's pretty clear this wasn't reviewed at all.

ahoka 8mo ago

Yes. This is expected at any serious company as intellectual property violations can have serious consequences.

beart 8mo ago

I don't think the characterization of this being a diagram from "some rando" is accurate or fair. The original content is highly influential... which should be self-evident by the fact it is being reproduced verbatim ten years later, and was immediately recognized.

NekkoDroid 8mo ago

> but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago? We aren't talking about just some random image from some random blog. The article we are talking about is about a specific topic, which when searched online one of the first is the article containing the original image (at least for google, bing seems to be really struggling to give me the article but under images it is again the first). I would cut some slack if this were a really obscure topic almost noone talks about, but it's been a thing talked about in the programmer space for ages.

computerfriend 8mo ago

Yes? It's a famous diagram, at least in the world of Git workflows, so I would expect a reviewer of Microsoft's Git workflow documentation to be familiar with it. (But the main issue is that the diagram is slop, not that it's a copy.)

GrinningFool 8mo ago

I would personally expect review to evaluate for correctness. Such a review would have stopped this from being published. This diagram as published is literal nonsense.