patrec

50 ms·

481.
by patrec 6y ago
On the assumption that almost everyone would be better without Farmville in their lives and that such a loss might at least get some of them to reconsider the wisdom of their behavior, there would be a certain irony if such a class action s
482.
by patrec 6y ago
I don't get the games industry's obsession with crunch. Never mind adverse health and personal impacts -- does it actually work as a means to squeezing more output out of staff? I mean, you can definitely achieve a short temporary
483.
by patrec 6y ago
> The company was named 任天堂骨牌 (Nintendō Karuta) when it was founded in 1898 to sell a traditional Japanese card game called Hanafuda (meaning "flower cards"). Well, calling Hanfuda a traditional card game is bit like calling co
484.
by patrec 6y ago
> Yes and no; as long as they're isolated, I don't think pushing the rate of bad commits from 1% down to 0.5% or even 0.1% is really a game-changer. But how are they going to be isolated if your CI runs for 1.5h and you allow b
485.
by patrec 6y ago
Not really. But you might want to check out what Gábor Melis is doing, e.g. https://github.com/melisgl/mgl He's won several ML competitions and works at Deep Mind now, so as far as Common Lisp fans with strong str
486.
by patrec 6y ago
https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/122307740466037145...
487.
by patrec 6y ago
> What you're proposing doesn't actually improve matters; you don't gain anything (other than saving a bit of machine time) by only testing known-compiling commits. You're not being quite honest here: of course just k
488.
by patrec 6y ago
> No we can't, because what do people do in this scenario? They make a new commit that fixes the tests, but leaves a long chain of previous commits broken. Same thing will happen with merges -- one can try to argue (as you have done
489.
by patrec 6y ago
> Fundamentally any workflow where you have multiple long-lived branches and want to cross-merge between them (e.g. branches for several mostly-independent long-term features, per-client branches) is impossible with rebase I absolutely a
490.
by patrec 6y ago
> The head commit on master is the same, but the state of previous commits from your branch becomes different and untested, and quite possibly broken. Try to break it down, and you will see that the scenario you're positing doesn&#x
491.
by patrec 6y ago
You may believe so, but it's not true. Let me explain. There are two somewhat different use cases for rebasing: 1. You want to do the equivalent of a merge without creating a merge commit, which is what I was mostly talking about when
492.
by patrec 6y ago
This matches my (very hazy) memory ; I'm almost wondering at this point whether the way of least friction to herd a bunch of git repositories I have is to stuff them all into a mercurial super-repository (from what I remember, mercuria
493.
by patrec 6y ago
If you are genuinely worried that rebasing a feature branch into master will somehow corrupt the precious bodily fluids of your commits, reading a book on git will probably be the most immediately effective means to avoid littering everythi
494.
by patrec 6y ago
I agree git init should do it, but a) it still needs to be the same commit every time to work properly b) a particular "canonical" standard initial commit becoming a defacto standard in the wild presumably increases the chances th
495.
by patrec 6y ago
> you might as well just use SVN I've got a feeling you are not being fully serious, so on that assumption instead of me explaining why this really not at all the case, how about you provide an example of a workflow that you think c
496.
by patrec 6y ago
I think this should work fine (modulo typical git ui infelicities; but you can certainly make an alias that does it). How about something along the lines of: git stash --keep-index git stash git checkout right-branch
497.
by patrec 6y ago
Thanks, incorporated your --no-gpg-sign suggestion. I think it's best to use a canonical author/committer as well. Ideally everyone would agree on something so tooling like commit linters (which check org email addresses or commit
498.
by patrec 6y ago
What things about the staging area do you dislike at a fundamental level (i.e. going beyond a one-off cost of having to memorize a quirk)?
499.
by patrec 6y ago
See my reply to sibling on how to do it in a reproducible fashion. Maybe we should just all agree on a canoncial initial commit after all? :)
500.
by patrec 6y ago
Why not got the whole mile, and do something like this: GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='nil' GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='nil@example.com' \ GIT_COMMITTER_NAME='nil' GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL='nil@example.com' \ GIT_AU
501.
by patrec 6y ago
The issue is not one of memory holing: non-merge commit reverts work as people expect (and leave a historical record). I think the right way handle this in git, in most cases, is to just avoid merging altogether. Do work on feature branche
502.
by patrec 6y ago
The problem with reverts of merge commits in git is that it doesn't behave like most people intuitively expect. If you merge B into master, find a problem, revert the merge and push a fix to B and try merging B again most devs would ex
503.
by patrec 6y ago
Sadly the inconsistent and baroque command line interface of git for basic stuff is the least of its problems -- learning it is just a one time sunk cost every developer has to pay these days. What's more troubling is that git can&#x27
504.
by patrec 6y ago
I agree that // is the way to go but this only landed in C99, so almost 3 decades after the fact (~5 if you care about msvc support).
505.
by patrec 6y ago
> I mean, it's simple, but brain-damaged? Linking is not a hard problem at all. For the last 40 years with a sane language you'd say "I depend on A, B and C" (in any order) and often that would happen implicitly as pa
506.
by patrec 6y ago
It really is not excusable, since a) As far as I'm aware no other languages at that time suffered from this ridiculous defect. b) It doesn't really seem like the thing where you'd need 20/20 hindsight to figure out it&#x
507.
by patrec 6y ago
Any good quality open source implementations you can recommend (I guess in addition to LMAX's for Java).
508.
by patrec 6y ago
Writing a low latency garbage collector (with decent throughput) is a non-trivial engineering problem and requires both high calibre engineers with specialized skills and a lot of funding. I fear the time lisp community has had either are l
509.
by patrec 6y ago
It used to be, and when Edi Weitz first wrote it over a decade ago it was a very elegant example of the power of having a language that makes efficient code gen at runtime both possible and easy -- a single developer was able to outperform
510.
by patrec 6y ago
Sounds like disruptor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptor_(software)

More ›