Its all about the regressions, not finding anything novel
Though I wish I was entirely kidding. ~12 years ago or so we did that if one of two parallel development teams had to modify a message of the network protocol to avoid incompatibilities and merge problems.
Mind you, these were SVN merges. I can't even verbalize my feelings about SVN merges but by a mixture of laughing and groaning in pain, like if you stubbed your toe in a painful, but entirely funny way.
I would give that a 5/10 accuracy at best!
(Disclosure: GitHub employee)
(+WebHooks) (+Issues)
I am not sure about tangled.sh, I might ask them in their discord about this now y'know.
The Linux kernel developers have been using that workflow for a lot of time. Maybe still now.
[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch
Yes, they do. Git itself is also developed that way.
Btw, you don't need to use format + send-email, send-email calls format-patch under the hood
Why?
https://www.businessinsider.com/github-ceo-developers-embrac...
So many clowns. It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook. Nothing says "this tool is useful" quite like forcing people to use it.
I'd assume that many CEO are driven by the same urge to please the board. And depending on your board, there might be people on it who spend many hours per week on LinkedIn, and see all the success stories around AI, maybe experienced something first hand.
Good news: It's, from my estimate, only a phase. Like when blockchain hit, and everyone wanted to be involved. This time - and that worries me - the ressources involved are more expensive, though. There might be a stronger incentive for people to "get their money back". I haven't thought about the implications yet.
AI is more like the early web. There is definite value that people can see, but no one really knows how to monetize beyond the incredibly obvious 'sell people access to it', so everyone is throwing spaghetti at the wall waiting for it to stick. When someone gets it to stick, there will be a giant amount of money coming at them, but until then there will be a ton of people with sauce all over their faces looking like idiots.
There's a lot of cowboy development going on out there. Why not take this opportunity to talk to your customers for a bit? Make sure you're still building the right things.
At any decently-sized org, the developers are not allowed to talk to customers on their own accord.
If the business is afraid to let you email the customer, you might need to work on your communications skills and go through some intentional demonstration efforts. For example, "Good morning <boss>, here's a draft of what I think we should send <CTO's name @ customer> regarding their feedback on the last build.".
That's literally all it takes to get into the game. Don't ask for permission to write the draft because then your managers will think it's gonna be this big ordeal and they'll definitely say no.
At a B2C, I would not email a customer directly without sign-off. We have marketing teams, research teams, comms, customer support, etc. I would be stepping on so many toes, and risking brand reputation, if I were to interact with our customers.
This has been the case before VCSes existed.
How they would deploy the older container, I don't know.
A lot of this is guesswork, I don't work for them or anything. And I know that GHES in the way that my employer manages it is very unlike the way that GitHub host github.com, so everything i've assumed could be wrong.
The pipeline for deploying the monolith doesn’t happen in GitHub Actions though but in a service based in jenkins.
Fun fact: playbooks for incidents used to be hosted in GitHub too but we moved them after an incident that made impossible to access them while it lasted.
Couldn't they just be checked out by cron on any number of local machines hosting Apache?
If you deliberately decide to use a system that introduces a single point of failure into a decentralised system, you have to live with the consequences.
From their point of view, unless they start losing paying users over this, they have no incentive to improve. I assume customers are happy with the SLA, otherwise why use Github?
sucks for people that use issues/PRs for coordination and had a planning meeting scheduled, though
And forgejo doesn't have feature parity at all with gitlab. Neither does github, for that matter.
Just take a look at how to push container images from a cicd pipeline in gitlab vs. Forgejo.
https://www.developer-tech.com/news/embrace-ai-or-leave-care...
Maybe his developers embraced AI a bit too much? Or maybe they left the field?
People seem to forget Git was meant to be decentralized.
I agree with the sentiment though.
SwiftyBug•1h ago
AdventureMouse•1h ago