aseipp

22 ms·

211.
by aseipp 2y ago
There's already a series posted a week ago for 6.12 that will ungate PREEMPT_RT on x86, ARM and RISC-V; it only modifies the Kconfig entries to enable it[1]. So I'd say it's hardly a bet! [1] https://lwn.net/m
212.
by aseipp 2y ago
amdgpu is shit for me, my friend. Funny story: my headless server with a small Navi 1 workstation card (repurposed) couldn't be SSH'd into last week. Went and plugged in a monitor, rebooted, and the framebuffer got stuck during st
213.
by aseipp 2y ago
You can spend a small amount of die space on something that will yield 10x performance benefits for some things, and you can spend a lot of die space on something that will only yield a general 5% improvement. Which you choose depends on a
214.
by aseipp 2y ago
I was aware of s2n-bignum which is a very cool project, but apparently there is a larger sister project, aws-lc, that aims for broader set of APIs including OpenSSL compatibility, while retaining the general approach and vibe (lots of forma
215.
by aseipp 2y ago
You can write large SQLite databases at disk speed with the right data model and schema. What most people do as mentioned is either batch writes, or simply send them over some kind of channel to a single thread that is the designated writer
216.
by aseipp 2y ago
> the only difference being that it compares different iterations of the force-push "naively", so if your force-push includes for example a rebase onto master because another MR has been merged ahead of yours, the diff will inc
217.
by aseipp 2y ago
If you're asking "Why did this take 15 years for people to understand" and my reply is "Because it was under 1000 layers of other bullshit", then that's the answer to your pontification. It has nothing to do wi
218.
by aseipp 2y ago
I mean, the answer is simple. Even if email-based flows use range-diff, which is the correct conceptual model, all the actual details of using email are, I would estimate, about 1,000x shittier in 2024 than using GitHub in 2008 when I sig
219.
by aseipp 2y ago
GitHub lets you do this, but only when writing a review for someone else. Not when addressing someone else's review, in which case your complaint 100% stands. And yes, it absolutely drives me nuts, honestly. Why can I batch review
220.
by aseipp 2y ago
Yeah, but you can't really discuss the topic itself , right? I do think this is a weakness of Gerrit. It doesn't really capture "big picture" stuff nearly so well. At least on GH you can read the top-level comment, whic
221.
by aseipp 2y ago
Yes, the point is that it basically doesn't support that. Well, OK. You can push two branches, v1 and v2, each with the commits. Then to do pairwise diffs, you type in the commit object hashes directly into the URL bar to diff the two
222.
by aseipp 2y ago
Interactive rebase is fine, I used it probably 50x a day for many years. The problem isn't really with Git here, it's more a bunch of interrelated problems with GitHub's UX, and the fact that many people culturally have never
223.
by aseipp 2y ago
Yes, fixup commits are a good way to approach this, though I don't personally like them, though. I think Sapling's "absorb" command which works on an underlying SCCS weave to automatically absorb changes into the relevan
224.
by aseipp 2y ago
> Another way to look at this that this is 3 linearly dependent PRs masquerading as one. The first commit in the example is not dependent on anything else and may not exist at all. Rather its existence is illusory to show that sometimes
225.
by aseipp 2y ago
I more meant that it's hard to diff between arbitrary commits without using the URL bar. The results are also... Weird. For example, let's say you have the base B, and commit X: B ---> X Now someone pushed to main,
226.
by aseipp 2y ago
I keep saying this over and over but, Gerrit basically does that. :) You can see the relationships between any two patches on Gerrit, and more importantly, Gerrit shows you each patch individually . So you can see in a series A -> B -&g
227.
by aseipp 2y ago
One of my favorites was something like: > Phabricator is well received, and has raging reviews from users inside Facebook, such as "Mandatory" and "OK" Also, Evan Priestley still uses the https://secure.pha
228.
by aseipp 2y ago
I know this is in jest, but I'll just take the opportunity to respond by posting my favorite poem. The relationship between it and your question -- well, that's for you to decide. The birds have vanished down the sky. No
229.
by aseipp 2y ago
No, paying for GH doesn't make the code review experience any better. It's identical across public/cloud/enterprise GH. I do not know if GitLab does anything different; I've never used it in anger. I'd bet $10
230.
by aseipp 2y ago
That's sick as hell, friend. Actually, I have a second part to this article discussing some of the history and politics of what brought me to these tools. In about 2013, I migrated the Glasgow Haskell Compiler from "read .patch fi
231.
by aseipp 2y ago
Yes, Gerrit is fucking great. If you actually want to do code review and not just rubber stamp shit on GitHub because your eyes are going to bleed after reading the same thing for the 15th time, just use Gerrit. The thing is, I just never
232.
by aseipp 2y ago
We strongly considered Graphite as an alternative to Gerrit at my job that I mentioned at the start of this post (which I am no longer at, actually) because it does look like an absolutely excellent product, I will admit. You should all be
233.
by aseipp 2y ago
I am the author and used the phrase "Code review is a pretty good idea, in general" in the opening very specifically, because it used be one of the selling points listed on the Phabricator homepage. :) I miss it.
234.
by aseipp 2y ago
I am the person who wrote this. AMA EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if this is against the rules, but I also need a new job as of recently. I like working on dev tools and other hard problems. If you liked reading this, want me to make your d
235.
by aseipp 2y ago
> Aren't the edge cases features? What features do you have in mind? > It puts the choice of guaranteed writes vs performance to the developer. Yes, and it's a completely false choice. This entire point of this thread is tha
236.
by aseipp 2y ago
It basically works fine, but there are some annoying edge cases that even I, a jj developer, have run into. Probably the most "common" one (and it's not that common, just moreso than the rest) when you switch branches with
237.
by aseipp 2y ago
It doesn't work like that. I should probably rewrite that "first class" part in the docs and use a real example (I wrote it originally), but basically it comes down to this: When a commit is in a conflicted state, the fact it
238.
by aseipp 2y ago
`jj split --interactive` is built in, and will handle that exact case for you. It also comes with a built in TUI so you can select lines right from the terminal immediately. You can even do `jj split --parallel` which will not only split th
239.
by aseipp 2y ago
Sapling is a Git client, so it can use Git on-disk structures, if you ask it to. But its native backend, a central server system called Mononoke, is completely different in design and scope, and is in fact designed to handle very large repo
240.
by aseipp 2y ago
Yes, it uses Git as the default backend, so it's more or less just a different interface to a Git repository. Everyone today uses it this way. The server-side components have been open source, but not fully usable due to fb-only code.

More ›