Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

nvie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 427 posts

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#251

Post by beart »

prmoustache wrote: post #68
anonymous908213 wrote: post #32

Microsoft employee (VP of something or other, for whatever Microsoft uses "VP" to mean) doing damage control on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/scott.hanselman.com/post/3mez4yxty2... > looks like a vendor, and we have a group now doing a post-mortem trying to figure out how it happened. It'll be removed ASAFP > Understood. Not trying to sweep under rugs, but I also want to point out that everything is moving very f…

> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic. Ortho and grammar errors should have been corrected, but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?

I don't think the characterization of this being a diagram from "some rando" is accurate or fair.

The original content is highly influential... which should be self-evident by the fact it is being reproduced verbatim ten years later, and was immediately recognized.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#252

Post by franktankbank »

embedding-shape wrote: post #239
dsego wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I tag a bugfix that goes in after a feature was already merged into main? Basically out of order. Or do I need to tag the bugfix branch, in which case the main branch is no longer the release, so we need to ensure the bugfix ends up in the remote main branch as well as the release. Seems like it could cause further conflicts.

I'm not sure what you mean, what does "tag a bugfix", "tag the bugfix branch" or "ensure the bugfix ends up in the remote main branch as well as the release" even mean? What are you trying to achieve here, or what's the crux? I'm not 100% sure, but it seems you're asking about how to apply a bug fix while QA is testing a tag, that you'd like to be a part of the eventual release, but not on top of other features? Or i…

It means you need a bugfix on your release and you don't want to carry in any other features that have been applied to master in the meantime.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#253

Post by NekkoDroid »

prmoustache wrote: post #68
anonymous908213 wrote: post #32

Microsoft employee (VP of something or other, for whatever Microsoft uses "VP" to mean) doing damage control on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/scott.hanselman.com/post/3mez4yxty2... > looks like a vendor, and we have a group now doing a post-mortem trying to figure out how it happened. It'll be removed ASAFP > Understood. Not trying to sweep under rugs, but I also want to point out that everything is moving very f…

> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic. Ortho and grammar errors should have been corrected, but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?

> but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?

We aren't talking about just some random image from some random blog. The article we are talking about is about a specific topic, which when searched online one of the first is the article containing the original image (at least for google, bing seems to be really struggling to give me the article but under images it is again the first).

I would cut some slack if this were a really obscure topic almost noone talks about, but it's been a thing talked about in the programmer space for ages.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#254

Post by computerfriend »

prmoustache wrote: post #68
anonymous908213 wrote: post #32

Microsoft employee (VP of something or other, for whatever Microsoft uses "VP" to mean) doing damage control on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/scott.hanselman.com/post/3mez4yxty2... > looks like a vendor, and we have a group now doing a post-mortem trying to figure out how it happened. It'll be removed ASAFP > Understood. Not trying to sweep under rugs, but I also want to point out that everything is moving very f…

> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic. Ortho and grammar errors should have been corrected, but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?

Yes? It's a famous diagram, at least in the world of Git workflows, so I would expect a reviewer of Microsoft's Git workflow documentation to be familiar with it.

(But the main issue is that the diagram is slop, not that it's a copy.)

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#255

Post by heresie-dabord »

yoz-y wrote: post #47
nippoo wrote: post #7

They've taken it down now and replaced with an arguably even less helpful diagram, but the original is archived: https://archive.is/twft6

Wow it’s even worse than I thought. I thought that convictungly morhing would be the only problem. The nonsense and inconsistent arrowheads, the missing annotations, the missing bubbles. The “tirm” axis… That this was ever published shows a supreme lack of care.

This passage from the post by the original creator of the diagramme summarises our Bruh New World:

"What's dispiriting is the (lack of) process and care: take someone's carefully crafted work, run it through a machine to wash off the fingerprints, and ship it as your own. This isn't a case of being inspired by something and building on it. It's the opposite of that. It's taking something that worked and making it worse. Is there even a goal here beyond "generating content"?

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#256

Post by QuiCasseRien »

This is the type of diagram that horrified me.

It's a very very hard and time consuming task for dev to maintain hotfix for previous releases !

Yeah, easier for users, they don't have to care about breaking changes or migration guide. They just blindly update to the nearest minor.

But as the time goes on, the code for dev ends up being a complete mess of git branches and backports. Dev finally forgot some patches and the software contains a major security hole.

Dev ends by being exhausted, frustrated by its project and roasted by its users.

=> What I do : do not maintain any previous release but provide a strong migration guide and list all breaking changes !

users just have to follow updates or use another software.

I'm happy with it, my project has no debt code and more clean code.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#257

Post by embedding-shape »

franktankbank wrote: post #252
embedding-shape wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean, what does "tag a bugfix", "tag the bugfix branch" or "ensure the bugfix ends up in the remote main branch as well as the release" even mean? What are you trying to achieve here, or what's the crux? I'm not 100% sure, but it seems you're asking about how to apply a bug fix while QA is testing a tag, that you'd like to be a part of the eventual release, but not on top of other features? Or i…

It means you need a bugfix on your release and you don't want to carry in any other features that have been applied to master in the meantime.

Usually what I've seen is one of two solutions, the former (usually) being slightly favored: A) hide any new feature behind feature flags, separate "what's in the code" from "how the application works" essentially or B) have two branches, one for development (master) and one for production. The production branch is what QA and releasers work with, master is what developers work with, cherry-picking stuff and backporting becomes relatively trivial.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#258

Post by emmanuel_1234 »

ifh-hn wrote: post #244

I had to look up what "morged" meant, it's either morph and merge or a youtuber. I'm going with the first. I can't find a link to the learn page so can only see what's on the article. Is this a real big deal? Genuine question, driveby downvote if you must. Even if this was a product of AI surely it's just a case of fessing up and citing the source? Yeah it doesn't look good for MS but it's hardly the end of the world…

See https://archive.is/twft6 for context. The diagram is a bit lower on the page.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#259

Post by OskarS »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #240
g947o wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain the last one? The presentation is weird and stupid, but I don't see any obvious (technical) issue other than the missing bracket on the left, unlike the first two

Iterative example doesn't iterate, mismatches parentheses and brackets. Because of this, the iterative example is shorter and simpler than the "short & simple" lambda example. Lambda example is to the best of my parsing ability this: apples.stream() .filter(a -λ a.isRed()); // Should be apples.stream() .filter(a -> a.isRed()) // or Apple::isRed .forEach(a -> giveApple(a)); // or this::giveApple It's also somewhat imp…

It's interesting to see how LLMs make mistakes sometimes: replacing `->` with `-λ` because arrow sort-of has the same meaning as lambdas in lambda calculus. It's like an LLM brain fart replacing something semantically similar but nonsensical in context.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#260

Post by snowwrestler »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #221
wiseowise wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LinkedIn is a fucking asylum populate by the most unhinged “people” and bots. I don’t know a single serious technical person active on LinkedIn.

I short the stock of companies whose leadership is wasting time posting to LinkedIn instead of… y’know… leading their org. The more they post the more I short. Similarly, the less-attached-to-reality the post is the more I short. I wish I could say I’m making bank off this strategy - but pretty-much all the slopposters (and the most insufferable of the AI boosters) are all working for nonpublic firms, oh well.

Maybe not a winning strategy because a lot of public companies have a comms team that manages the CEO’s LinkedIn. Thereby saving the valuable time of the CEO themselves.
Post reply on HN