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

281–290 of 427 posts

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#281

Post by riskable »

wiseowise wrote: post #169
ChristianJacobs wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LinkedIn is a masquerade ball dressed up as a business oriented forum. Nobody is showing their true selves, everyone is either grinding at their latest unicorn potential with their LLM BFF or posting a "thoughtful" story that is 100% totally real about a life changing event that somehow turns into a sales pitch at the end...

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.

There's a whole community devoted to pointing out LinkedIn Lunatics!

https://sh.itjust.works/c/linkedinlunatics

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#282

Post by mcv »

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…

The VP blames a vendor of course, but didn't Microsoft recently announce they were going to vibe code everything? Because this image looks like it comes from the kind of company that thinks it can vibe code everything.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#283

Post by estimator7292 »

mort96 wrote: post #273
choeger wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am working with main/master for years now, and there's one problem you don't have with develop: Whenever you merge something into master, it kind of blocks the next release until its (non-continuous) QA is done. If your changes are somewhat independent, you can cherry-pick them from develop into master in an arbitrary order and call that a release whenever you want to.

What's the difference between what you describe, and continuously merging things into main and cutting releases from a branch called stable?

They're the same strategy with different branch names.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#284

Post by close04 »

ChristianJacobs wrote: post #19
cwal37 wrote: post #10

LinkedIn is also a great example of this stuff at the moment. Every day I see posts where someone clearly took a slide or a diagram from somewhere, then had ChatGPT "make it better" and write text for them to post along with it. Words get mangled, charts no longer make sense, but these people clearly aren't reading anything they're posting. It's not like LinkedIn was great before, but the business-influencer incentiv…

LinkedIn is a masquerade ball dressed up as a business oriented forum. Nobody is showing their true selves, everyone is either grinding at their latest unicorn potential with their LLM BFF or posting a "thoughtful" story that is 100% totally real about a life changing event that somehow turns into a sales pitch at the end...

> LinkedIn is a masquerade ball dressed up as a business oriented forum. Nobody is showing their true selves

That's the main trait of almost all social media. A parade of falsity, putting on the show for everyone else, being what you wish you were and what everyone else dreams of being or envies.

LinkedIn is about boasting and boosting the professional life, other social media is for the personal life. More or less equally fake.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#285

Post by mcv »

p_ing wrote: post #166
clort wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

plenty of people on the internet recognised it immediately, so sure, he may have been a rando when he created it, but not so much 15 years later..

Did the one MSFT employee that “reviewed” it know of this image? If not, it doesn’t matter how many people “on the Internet” recognized this image. I’ll never understand the implied projection. (I don’t think this was reviewed closely if at all)

I would hope that the person who reviews their training on gitflow, knows something about gitflow. And if you know something about gitflow, it's not that strange to expect to recognise the most iconic gitflow diagram.

But even if you don't recognise the original, at least you should be able to tell that the generated copy is bullshit.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#287

Post by Andrex »

co_king_5 wrote: post #238
pjc50 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war on facts continues. Facts are hard, they require a careful chain of provenance. It's much cheaper to just make up whatever people want to hear, safe in the knowledge that there will never be any negative consequences for you . Only other people, who aren't real anyway.

[dead]

The other people aren't real unless I'm forced to acknowledge their existence, often through violent but avoidable means.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#288

Post by Izkata »

embedding-shape wrote: post #257
franktankbank wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 backport…

With (B) you've just reconstructed the part of git-flow that was questioned at the start of this thread. Just switch the two branches from master/production to develop/master.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#289

Post by antonvs »

embedding-shape wrote: post #257
franktankbank wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 backport…

B is basically Gitflow with different branch names - “one for development” is called develop, “one for production” is called main.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#290

Post by BalinKing »

gzread wrote: post #249
marginalia_nu wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I've been collecting some of the weirdest ones I've seen floating by. It's really the only thing that has me visiting linkedin. https://www.marginalia.nu/junk/linked/games.jpeg https://www.marginalia.nu/junk/linked/json.png https://www.marginalia.nu/junk/linked/syntax.png (and before anyone tells me to charge my phone, I have one of those construction worker phones with 2 weeks battery. 14% is like good for a co…

The red apple streams one is good. It shows how developers chase shiny new stuff with no respect for fundamentals. They will say it's less code, and then show you more code.

The apples one is LLM nonsense: the left example doesn’t include any code for the loop, whereas the streams version actually is iterating over a collection.

Regardless, FP-style code isn’t “shiny new stuff”—it’s been around for decades in languages like Lisp or Haskell. Functional programming is just as theoretically “fundamental” as imperative programming. (Not to mention that, these days, not even C corresponds that closely to what’s actually going on in hardware.)

Post reply on HN