No doubt. git rebase is like a very sharp knife. In the right hands, it can accomplish great things, but in the wrong hands, it can also spell disaster.
As someone who HAS used it a fair amount, I generally don’t even recommend it to people unless they’re already VERY comfortable with the rest of git and ideally have some sense of how it works internally.
Yeah it is something people should take time to learn. I do think its “dangers” are pretty overstated, though, especially if you always do git rebase --interactive, since if anything goes wrong, you can easily get out with git rebase --abort.
In general there’s a pretty weird fear that you can fuck up git to the point at which you can’t recover. Basically the only time that’s really actually true is if you somehow lose uncommitted work in your working tree. But if you’ve actually committed everything (and you should always commit everything before trying any destructive operations), you can pretty much always get back to where you were. Commits are never actually lost.
You can get in some pretty serious messes, though. Any workflow that involves force-pushing or rebasing has the potential for data loss… Either in a literally destructive way, or in a “Seriously my keys must be somewhere but I have no idea where” kind of way.
When most people talk about rebase (for example) being reversible, what they’re usually saying is “you can always reverse the operation in the reflog.” Well yes, but the reflog is local, so if Alice messes something up with her rebase-force-push and realizes she destroyed some of Bob’s changes, Alice can’t recover Bob’s changes from her machine-- She needs to collaborate with Bob to recover them.
Pretty much everything that can act as a git remote (GitHub, gitlab, etc.) records the activity on a branch and makes it easy to see what the commit sha was before a force push.
But it’s a pretty moot point since no one that argues in favor of rebasing is suggesting you use it on shared branches. That’s not what it’s for. It’s for your own feature branches as you work, in which case there is indeed very little risk of any kind of loss.
Ah, you’ve never worked somewhere where people regularly rebase and force-push to master. Lucky :)
I have no issue with rebasing on a local branch that no other repository knows about yet. I think that’s great. As soon as the code leaves local though, things proceed at least to “exercise caution.” If the branch is actively shared (like master, or a release branch if that’s a thing, or a branch where people are collaborating), IMO rebasing is more of a footgun than it’s worth.
You can mitigate that with good processes and well-informed engineers, but that’s kinda true of all sorts of dubious ideas.
Pushing to master in general is disabled by policy on the forge itself at every place I’ve worked. That’s pretty standard practice. There’s no good reason to leave the ability to push to master on.
There’s no reason to avoid force pushing a rebased version of your local feature branch to the remote version of your feature branch, since no one else should be touching that branch. I literally do this at least once a day, sometimes more. It’s a good practice that empowers you to craft a high-quality set of commits before merging into master. Doing this avoids the countless garbage fix typo commits (and spurious merge commits) that you’d have otherwise, making both reviews easier and giving you a higher-quality, more useful history after merge.
Why should no one be touching it? You’re basically forcing manually communicated sync/check points on a system that was designed to ameliorate those bottlenecks
No, you divide work so that the majority of it can be done in isolation and in parallel. Testing components together, if necessary, is done on integration branches as needed (which you don’t rebase, of course). Branches and MRs should be small and short-lived with merges into master happening frequently. Collaboration largely occurs through developers frequently branching off a shared main branch that gets continuously updated.
Trunk-based development is the industry-standard practice at this point, and for good reason. It’s friendlier for CI/CD and devops, allows changes to be tested in isolation before merging, and so on.
JS is absolute chaos programming and I love that way too much. You can just feel all the caffeine ingested by the guy who had to pull long nights to ship JS within 10 days. That’s exactly the vibe I’m going for with my code.
“You should have known what the intent of the question was. Management won’t know or care about the internals of your code as long as it meets requirements. You have failed this test.”
Or
“You should know that you’re calling a function with invalid parameters. Where did you get your CS degree from again?”
“You should have known what the intent of the question was. Management won’t know or care about the internals of your code as long as it meets requirements. You have failed this test.”
“You should know that you’re calling a function with invalid parameters. Where did you get your CS degree from again?”
sigh you can have your ransom, just remove the cameras.
no the school can realistically choose any sensible language, the one in the exam question is a pseudocode one that is used only to make the exam questions understandable regardless of which language you studied
Some on here once described the idea of an innovation budget. Basically you can do about 3 new things at once before you forget what the hell you are doing and that has made so much sense to me.
That is probably most common! The forgetting what you are doing part probably only comes so far down the road of trying to make a system that works despite all the interferences.
As a builder, I have had this scenario play out dozens of times. Clients paying millions for design and being shocked at what they get. My favorite was the charity that the architect spec’d custom handmade tile from Italy for… in a service bathroom lol. 40k to tile one wall of a bathroom for a charity that struggles to keep its doors open.
But programming is worse. In your analogy, once you finished the wall they’d come to you and ask you if you could „make the finished wall cheaper somehow?“ (because they are so incompetent that they think programming is magic and can magically change things in the real world).
And when you logically answer „no can do“ they won’t wake up to the fact they’re asking stupid questions, but rather think of you as not competent enough…
Yes, it is. Mostly because “real engineering” isn’t the high bar it’s made out to be. From that blog:
Nobody I read in these arguments, not one single person, ever worked as a “real” engineer. At best they had some classical training in the classroom, but we all know that looks nothing like reality. Nobody in this debate had anything more than stereotypes to work with. The difference between the engineering in our heads and in reality has been noticed by others before, most visibly by Glenn Vanderburg. He read books on engineering to figure out the difference. But I wanted to go further.
Software has developed in an area where the cost of failure is relatively low. We might make million dollar mistakes, but it’s not likely anybody dies from it. In areas where somebody could die from bad software, techniques like formal verification come into play. Those tend to make everything take 10 times longer, and there’s no compelling reason for the industry at large to do that.
If anything, we should lean into this as an advantage. How fast can we make the cycle of change to deployment?
We might make million dollar mistakes, but it’s not likely anybody dies from it.
I had a coworker who got a gig writing PDA software for a remote-controlled baseball machine. He was to this day the most incompetent programmer I’ve ever met personally; his biggest mistake on this project was firing a 120 mph knuckleball (a pitch with no spin so its flight path is incredibly erratic) a foot over a 12-year-old kid’s head. This was the only time in my 25-year career that I had to physically restrain someone (the client, in this case) to prevent a fist fight. I replaced my coworker on the project after this and you can bet I took testing a little bit more seriously than he did.
In many cases this is accurate. Programming alone doesn’t amount to engineering. Lotta low quality lines of code being churned out these days because standards have dropped.
The people in this thread are open source power users who don’t get and don’t want the features that discord offers. It’s no surprise you’d rather have your forum back. I don’t think that’s how it’s going to work.
Privacy is good and what discord does is bad. But don’t lecture me on how convient and nice it is to use or run something like matrix, if this is your idea of a user onboarding experience:
This user is being extremely pedantic, I recently moved my discord server to a matrix instance and I promise you, it is not that hard. Download Element, make an account in the app, log in. It takes no longer than any other service.
Wdym, that’s 10 whole paragraphs with 27 whole sentences, what do I look like some kind of old person (like idk 29? Gross) who can read more than one line at a time? I, The TikTok generation, am incapable of sustaining concentration for more than 30sec at a time! It’s too hard even though it explicitly lays out each step to make it easier and even includes a couple screenshots!
Matrix isn’t competing with the experience of setting up another account on a different platform, with email, username, passwords, recovery key, display theme, notifications settings, content warnings, etc…
It’s competing with being able to click on a link to join a subgroup of a social network that people are already a part of and already signed into.
I have no problems with discord as chat/supplement (and I remember setting up irc-discord bots in the past so you could totally have both) it’s when discord is the only way to interact that it’s annoying IMO. Part of the benefit of forums and git issues is searchability imo, can’t really search discord externally for content and I definitely have found the search function annoying at best.
That said, video guides instead of manuals also annoys me, but that’s a different issue.
It’s confusing to me why people think discord is a good replacement for forums. It’s not even the same paradigm - it’s a chat program. Not being indexed by search engines is a major drawback as well.
Searching shit is pretty damn important and Discord isn’t optimal, definitely. But somehow it’s better at searching than Lemmy! Now how does that happen?
Lemmy is indexed so can be found on search engines while discord cant
For internal search without using a search engine discord has had way more devs, time and money thrown at it. Still would say its barely better than lemmy (just is cause of the time filters)
Because you can make a Discord server in like one click basically. That’s it. Also they have forum channels now on so-called community servers.
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying Discord is better. I still hate how often it is used for things it shouldn’t be and I hate that it isn’t indexed by search engines. I’m just explaining.
Matrix is the protocol. Element is one of the (many) clients. Setting up an account on a server is as easy or easier than discord. Try it app.element.io
Matrix has video and voice rooms, screen-sharing, direct calls, threads, and very little fluff. An entire conference (FOSDEM) was hosted on a matrix server and people from any homeserver could connect. Admittedly, I don’t use other features, but those are all that I need. What other features are essential for an opensource community that only discord provides?
As for forums, they are for async. Are you going to seriously tell me discord is a good forum replacement?
To me it looks like the features are about 80% there, can’t find the screen sharing, login with QR doesn’t exist. Not really sure how to even search for some features because the naming is so extremely bad. “matrix automation” “element bot”. E.g. this is a very poor collection: element.io/integrations Looks like custom emotes are still missing.
But let’s say all of that exists and works.
What other features are essential for an opensource community that only discord provides?
I think we’re talking about different things then. I don’t need something for an opensource community. I need something for ALL communities I’m a part of. Because I’m already in 40 of them and 5 of them are FOSS projects. So switching those over increases friction, if it’s not a total replacement.
As for forums, they are for async. Are you going to seriously tell me discord is a good forum replacement?
This is inverted. I don’t need to defend why the platform I’m on is good, (it’s not), you need to explain why forums are supposed to be better (they are significantly worse).
Documentation belongs on a dedicated website, Issues belong on some gitlab or something instance. If I have a question, I want the answer reasonably quickly or I’m just not going to use the software you’re providing. If I’m nice, I’ll leave a post on the bug tracker that the install/getting started documentation didn’t work.
Forums serve no purpose anymore.
Right now, I’m going to stop using element/matrix again for the forseeable future because there are no communities with public rooms I’m interested in.
You are in a comment thread with the title “FLOSS communities right now”. I don’t know what you were expecting…
Forums serve no purpose anymore.
So programming.dev is useless and serves no purpose? A budding community must be online 24/7 to provide support because “I want the answer reasonably quickly”? Not even a budding community, imagine a community with many people and the chat moving forward quickly enough for your question to be out of scrolling view within minutes due to other discussions going on. Even in that scenario there is “no purpose” for a forum?
We’re talking about discord and why people use that and not other technology. 99% of the people on discord are not involved with FOSS, but they are what make the platform attractive.
programming.dev is useless and serves no purpose?
No, this instance is federated and not a traditional forum.
A budding community must be online 24/7 to provide support
No, it’s fine if that support is given via the git platform, and it’s also fine if it takes a while. And it’s also fine if the question goes unanswered.
imagine a community with many people and the chat moving forward quickly enough for your question to be out of scrolling view within minutes due to other discussions going on. Even in that scenario there is “no purpose” for a forum?
Yes. Because it is functionally no different than a forum main page where so many new topics get created that questions people don’t get to get buried. And also, I’ve never seen that happen with chats. What I have seen is that people didn’t have time or interest to answer my question. Which is fine because they owe me nothing. But a forum would not have “solved” that.
We’re talking about discord and why people use that and not other technology. 99% of the people on discord are not involved with FOSS, but they are what make the platform attractive.
Dunno what to tell you, but I made meme about FLOSS communities using discord and you’re talking to me about the other “99%”. Not my problem if you go off-topic.
The desired alternative is not Matrix simply because privacy-conscious, open-source ecosystem vs. proprietary solution is not the goal. Matrix would still generally be terrible for support. What people want is publicly searchable content that is ideally indexed like a wiki. Many will happily settle for issue boards or even forums though. Discord has pathetic search capabilities in comparison to any search engine and has no way to properly and publicly backup information that is posted to the platform. With a website of any kind, one could clone the site for mirroring or simply get a web archive service to crawl relevant sections.
I never saw that, that’s legitimately funny. I’d love to be in the room when that feature was designed, and the reaction of the developer it was handed too.
programmer_humor
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.