throwaw20221107

I feel like all of this would be resolved if my boy Linus had renamed `git add` to `git stage` or `git prepare` or something more clear.

Or added some warning, like "all this stuff you haven't committed yet; it's not managed by `git` so don't try to overwrite it all using `git` until you've committed some of it."

For me in this scenario, merging `main` w/ squash commit back into PR2 branch after PR1 gets merged works here.

As an aside — if code review is the bottleneck, it's probably not a huge investment to do some git fenangling to get the above to merge cleanly.

But I don't see how this use case is a dealbreaker or even specific to squash...? Won't you have to incorporate/merge other devs' changes to `main` back into PR2 anyhow, regardless of whether PR1 was a squash, rebase, or full history?

The previous two computing revolutions "personal computers" and "apps/websites" were enabled by the openness of the OS and the openness of TCP/IP and browser vendors, respectively. If the next "AR/VR" revolution depends on complex vision models, there's no guarantee they'll be open for independent devs. And judging by the last few years, it's highly likely they won't be.

BTW I think there's good reason they don't release GPT-3 or DALL-E or PaLM or whatever. That shit is dangerous.

Edit: ok you can hack the hardware to let you run the models or make the necessary network calls to run them. That's still way different than Wikipedia which is a first class webapp where you don't have to hack anything to use it.

The problem is not adversarial, or due to malice. The problem is ignorance and expediency driven by a desire to push code and little incentive to cleanup your git history.

The easy fix is to squash PRs.

The hard fix is to enforce that devs become "crafters" and to define what is and isn't "good faith".

The commit dag of git is a cool feature but shouldn't be in `main`. It's so much easier to work with a linear history and one where each commit contains all the required context to figure out "could this have broken something".

Let's say the binary deploy (before flighting) is fucked somehow. Then what do you do?

Dev 1: "I would like my PR to make 2 commits into `main` instead of the 1 that everyone else gets via squash."

Dev 2: "Ok then make 2 PRs."

I guess it differs between "library development" and "service development".

When you're developing a service, what's in `main` is constantly being tested under the production/customer load. So reverting the known bad PR is a faster fix. And the bug is affecting your customers, so you fix fast and cleanup later.

Typically in industry if a PR is broken you revert the whole thing as fast as possible. But most projects in industry are services.

However when you're developing a library you'll probably release via tags. So if bad code makes it into `main`, it's not a huge deal, and it might be clearer to just revert the one (child) commit of the PR. Because there's no time crunch, no bug in prod, nothing affecting customers.

>but craft the commits in the PR instead.

The problem with not enforcing squashing is trust. Think about the worst dev on your team:

Given that trust, are they gonna split their PR into useful commits? Fuck no. they're gonna merge into `main` a bunch of commits saying "fix typo lol xd" and "lol I suck".

If you give them the power to not just make 1 commit per PR, but N commits per PR, are they going to fill up your team's history with crap? Absolutely they will.

Squashing is a useful gatekeep in that way, to prevent one person from screwing over everybody else and making it harder to `blame` to rootcause a critical outage.

And if it's not possible to document inline, the PR docs or code review comments should address this. Then future onlookers can use `blame` to see the context.

Is it a work of art? No. But he got his point across to me rather clearly.

For context, I have a degree in mathematics. It certainly mirrors the informal-but-precise language you see in the field. Maybe that's why it was effective for me.

It won't go down this way. Wikipedia for AR will never happen. More likely it'll be thousands of ads and other crap.

1. `|`

2. `grep`

3. `"my actual filter"`

1. they didn't read this one diagram: https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Recording-Changes-...

2. And then they run `reset --hard`

1. Your codebase has a `main` branch which is write-protected

2. Devs submit changes to `main` from their own branches using PRs

3. Devs can do whatever the fuck they want on their own branch

4. PRs are merged one at a time

5. When merge happens a dev's PR is squashed into one commit that gets appended to `main`

6. If next dev wants to merge their PR with a conflicting change they have to resolve the conflict first and then they merge

7. The end result is that `main` is a linear history of all PRs with the time they were committed to the `main` branch i.e., when they could've started to break prod.

This is a solved problem and it works great in industry. Why break it? If you want interactive rebase then make 2 PRs.

more like 6 years, unless you're a new grad with no savings, or unless you somehow managed to burn through your 200K/yr salary every year. Probably decades if you migrate to an LCOL.

Edit: oh, you meant 6 months on the severance alone. Yep

And I disagree that solving climate change etc. is a "need" for most people. I think we all pretty much accept that climate change is going to happen unless some major coups or revolutions take place, and there's nothing we can do about it. Seems like the plan for the individual is just to ride it out for our 80 years, or until there's some food shortage or water crisis that kills us.

"i need to short a stock"

"have you tried options?"

1. they meant it as a question "does backdoor in opensea allow to take anyone's tokens?".

2. they meant it as a statement "backdoor in opensea allows you to take anyone's tokens"

Obviously #2 is a lot worse. Hopefully they just forgot the question mark and weren't intentionally being malicious.

That being said, I don't doubt that they do :)