hmeh

26 ms·

91.
by hmeh 3y ago
Author here. Commits aren't actions -- they are a log of an action being taken. You, the committer, are committing. What you commit, goes into a commit log. We choose to make our commit messages describe the change, rather than the per
92.
by hmeh 3y ago
Author here. I don't know that arbitrary is the right word. They were decided, and generally found to be superior to alternatives. We stick to them so as to avoid special variation ( https://github.com/aaronjensen/s
93.
by hmeh 3y ago
Author here. Thank you! I agree that there can be plenty of bike shedding about them, which is why we have an approach that is based on human psychology and can be backed up in that way. We don't often put too much more in the content
94.
by hmeh 3y ago
Author here. Yes, the diff should tell you more, but you shouldn't need to look at the diff until you have an idea what the contents of that diff are about. It's like the links on the hacker news home page -- clicking them will al
95.
by hmeh 3y ago
What does it say about us as an industry when someone gets downvoted for saying our work lives can be better? I always picture lobsters pulling each other back into boiling water. It’s sick, honestly.
96.
by hmeh 3y ago
I don’t think it is. By all means add a failing test, but I’d tend to commit it along with the code that makes it pass. This makes the commit cohesive. If I must commit it as work in progress I would, but I’d probably amend it once I had th
97.
by hmeh 3y ago
It’s not. They are different things and have different purposes. Saying you’re a merger is like saying you’re a left turner. You can be an ambiturner. Here’s a quick guide: Working on a feature branch with someone else and you have local co
98.
by hmeh 3y ago
There’s another way that feels totally unnatural at first, but puts the subject (the most important part) of the commit message first. It makes the commit about the change and the code, rather than the author. This is how we do it in all of
99.
by hmeh 3y ago
> However, in a typical project, landing a trivial change is slow. How long would it take you to fix it's/its typo in a comment? Probably 30 seconds to push the actual change, 30 minutes to get the CI results, and 3 hours for a
100.
by hmeh 3y ago
The difference, though, is that microservices was more about the focus on the micro. That was, small things. Not per-team things. It was about trying to break things down into the smallest possible piece (while simultaneously ignoring softw
101.
by hmeh 3y ago
> Not sure where you got that from, haven't said anything about it nor did I include that in my quotes. I got it from here: > This was specific to the tendencies in other replies to defer to your (or your team's) brilliance&
102.
by hmeh 3y ago
> This was specific to the tendencies in other replies to defer to your (or your team's) brilliance/experience as the answer to why your setup is not suspicious, but excellent. I touched on this in my reply to the other user, b
103.
by hmeh 3y ago
> The option to do non-clever code is seemingly insulting to the self-professed architect, but it is in my own experience at least, vastly more maintainable and productive, not because it results in "clean" code - it's usu
104.
by hmeh 3y ago
Thank you. I saw your other post, but it’s gone now. If you want to find me, I’m in the Eventide project Slack and on GitHub (you can find links to some of my posts here in this thread).
105.
by hmeh 3y ago
No, but his writings from 20 years ago on software design have been influential in our thinking. I’m working with Scott Bellware and Nathan Ladd.
106.
by hmeh 3y ago
> When I have to deal with that I usually wind up treating it like a monorepo anyways by creating automation to check out all repos and manage syncing them. Yes! Absolutely. With one key difference: You can't commit to multiple repo
107.
by hmeh 3y ago
> IMO using repos as a partition boundary is an abuse of git. How so? Why don't we put our Rails applications in the Rails repository? > And IMO invoking Plato to make a point is not helpful. Argumentum ad antiquitatem What I am
108.
by hmeh 3y ago
> Let's see here: Yes, let's. I have no problem with push back. > You have experienced what happens when web developers cosplay as software architects. I agree that this is overly snippy to the point of being counter-product
109.
by hmeh 3y ago
> Someone got to say it so I will. Most of your comments comes across like you've gone of the rails and started replacing competency, not to mention humility, with narcissism. Being so cocksure and backing it up with statements that
110.
by hmeh 3y ago
Usually, when you put quotes around something, it's considered proper to actually be quoting someone instead of trying your best to make them sound like a clown. But, why don't I go ahead and give you a real quote. Of our 400+ rep
111.
by hmeh 3y ago
Well, there is Poe's law. You can call my views and our team's culture extreme. We believe it is extreme from a statistical perspective. There's a reason that our team has the tenure that it has. What we are doing isn't
112.
by hmeh 3y ago
Do you know what does stand the test of time? Design principles that are based on the immutable laws of physics. There's a reason that I can quote Plato to support the notion of partitioning. There's a reason that the basic princi
113.
by hmeh 3y ago
That isn't actually the question. I know it's not the question because we're capable of it, it is infrequent, and it takes on the order of single digit person hours a month for that type of concern for our particular project.
114.
by hmeh 3y ago
Who said we don't do integration testing? We likely don't do it in the way that you would imagine, because we don't need to. We also don't call it integration testing, we just call it testing. We have a test environment
115.
by hmeh 3y ago
You are welcome. Feel free to reach out at any time with follow up questions. GitHub discussions are probably easiest, but I’ll try to check here too.
116.
by hmeh 3y ago
How do you know that? Hint: you don’t. You’re not the first to tell us what we do is impossible, and you won’t be the last. By the way, I know how it sounds. And I know why a person would fear it. And, I know why they’d be incorrect in thei
117.
by hmeh 3y ago
> Can you elaborate on this? What is the primary benefit of running 100-300 components vs a monolith specifically with a 12 person team? > More directly, what's wrong with a monolith at the dozen person team size? Great question.
118.
by hmeh 3y ago
Components are either autonomous event sourced back end components (using Eventide) or independent web applications that are combined with Nginx routes and SSI. The UI is (mostly) server-rendered Rails. The users have no idea they are hitti
119.
by hmeh 3y ago
If you have to "get all 15+ services running on your laptop", you've already lost. Every one of our 100+ components maintained by our dozen person team can be run and tested on its own. The only reason we have Docker on our
120.
by hmeh 3y ago
If you don't disagree, then I assume you have a strong understanding of structural design. I assume that you recognize that Conway's law is more of a curse, and a warning than it is something to embrace. I assume that you recogniz

More ›