11–20 of 40 posts
I'm confused, a DAG is a model for the relationships between data. What makes this a separate feature for the product? And it's pretty fundamental to the problem you try to solve, usually, so what were they using before, a list? Tree?
I'm confused, a DAG is a model for the relationships between data. What makes this a separate feature for the product? And it's pretty fundamental to the problem you try to solve, usually, so what were they using before, a list? Tree?
> I'm confused, a DAG is a model for the relationships between data. Here they're talking about a DAG as a model for the relationships between computation rather than data . Many systems that model computation use DAGs. For example it's how many compilers understand your code when you compile it.
The lisp people would like a word...
In seriousness, computation is data, and this is perhaps especially obvious in a CI context where your “computation” is increasingly bash scripts in some string field inside of a YAML file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm confused, a DAG is a model for the relationships between data. Here they're talking about a DAG as a model for the relationships between computation rather than data . Many systems that model computation use DAGs. For example it's how many compilers understand your code when you compile it.
> Here they're talking about ... computation rather than data. The lisp people would like a word... In seriousness, computation is data, and this is perhaps especially obvious in a CI context where your “computation” is increasingly bash scripts in some string field inside of a YAML file.
Why do you feel the need to say things in such a snarky way as this, as if I'm ignorant?
That was the point - that computation can also be represented in a 'data' structure like this. I already gave that exact example - a compiler representing computation as data.
I'm confused, a DAG is a model for the relationships between data. What makes this a separate feature for the product? And it's pretty fundamental to the problem you try to solve, usually, so what were they using before, a list? Tree?
Which part of the explanation of what they mean in the article is unclear?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here they're talking about ... computation rather than data. The lisp people would like a word... In seriousness, computation is data, and this is perhaps especially obvious in a CI context where your “computation” is increasingly bash scripts in some string field inside of a YAML file.
> The lisp people would like a word... Why do you feel the need to say things in such a snarky way as this, as if I'm ignorant? That was the point - that computation can also be represented in a 'data' structure like this. I already gave that exact example - a compiler representing computation as data.
My confusion was not on what they were doing or why they chose to use a DAG, but why they're presenting it this way and why they weren't using a DAG to begin with.
Like I've written task runners in various forms before. They've always been based on DAGs and topological sorting from the beginning. I wouldn't advertise it as such because the choice of model is obvious to me, I'd be more interested in reading about alternatives that provide other benefits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here they're talking about ... computation rather than data. The lisp people would like a word... In seriousness, computation is data, and this is perhaps especially obvious in a CI context where your “computation” is increasingly bash scripts in some string field inside of a YAML file.
> The lisp people would like a word... Why do you feel the need to say things in such a snarky way as this, as if I'm ignorant? That was the point - that computation can also be represented in a 'data' structure like this. I already gave that exact example - a compiler representing computation as data.
I agree that your example illustrates the "computation is data" concept; I was just reconciling that with the apparent contradiction ("computation rather than data") earlier in your post.
I wasn't trying to call "gotcha" on you or anything; sometimes I say things that are unclear and I appreciate it when others help me clarify.
So, just like Concourse, Drone and any other modern CI system. About time.
I've used CircleCI, Travis, Drone (I don't think I've used Concourse actually) -- and I by far prefer GitLab CI, it is more featureful and more easy to use.
This feature is currently broken. It can let deploys run without builds/tests passing. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/31526
Hope that is helpful. If so, feel free to add a comment so the team can see.
Anyone want to share their experience with git and monorepos these days?