411–420 of 481 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The modern workflow is just to let GitHub squeeze yor shit commits into one and then rebasing that.
The "squash everything" mantra turns git commit history into a series of snapshots devoid of any logical notion about how code evolves. Squashed commits are strictly worse than plain, non-fast-forwarded merges from rebased branches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect that Firefox is not bottlenecked on number of bug reports they got.
Many times I have encountered Firefox bugs that either haven't been reported, or which bugzilla's shit search makes too hard for me to find. Usually that's where I give up because it's a pain in the ass to enter reports in bugzilla, the whole process seems intended to scare off anybody not in the organization.
this does not mean that reporting more bugs would result in noticeable improvements, as likely there are already too many reported bugs to process them
at least that is my impression based on fate of my bug reports
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a binary. Many projects do want PRs, but it doesn't mean they have to accept any random PR, or fawn over every contributor who creates an obviously low-effort one. It's perfectly fine to "gatekeep" on quality matters, and that does mean acknowledging the fact that not all contributors are equally valuable.
> fawn over every contributor who creates an obviously low-effort one It's that sense of superiority that pisses me off. Many maintainers condescendingly reply "contributions welcome" in response to user complaints. People like that had better accept whatever they get. They could have easily done it themselves in all their "high quality" ways. They could have said "I don't have time for this" or even "I don't want to…
no, I am not obligated to merge badly written PRs introducing bugs just because I had no time to implement the feature myself
(I work at Mozilla, but not on the VCS tooling, or this transition) To give a bit of additional context here, since the link doesn't have any: The Firefox code has indeed recently moved from having its canonical home on mercurial at hg.mozilla.org to GitHub. This only affects the code; bugzilla is still being used for issue tracking, phabricator for code review and landing, and our taskcluster system for CI. In the s…
Thanks for the added context. If I may - what were the significant scale challenges for self hosted solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> color me sceptic on that one. This is fair but not sufficient to declare "the last thing they want is good data protection laws". > it's all Chrome and iOS. > So, what has Mozilla done with the billions? This is also fair but has nothing to do with the data protection laws. > Instead they have sold their soul to the highest (and only) bidder. It seems they can't continue doing this, given the ongoing legal actions…
> This is fair but... > This is also fair but... Ok, so we can agree that my assesment is fair, but it remains to be seen how the data protection story pans out. >> Instead they have sold their soul to the highest (and only) bidder. > It seems they can't continue doing this, given the ongoing legal actions against Google. So let's see. Just to be clear: I think that Mozilla should have taken that money (and possibly…
My point is that your assessment is largely irrelevant to your original message about the data protection. It doesn't really support it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "squash everything" mantra turns git commit history into a series of snapshots devoid of any logical notion about how code evolves. Squashed commits are strictly worse than plain, non-fast-forwarded merges from rebased branches.
Depends on your commits. If it’s untested noise I’d much rather they’re squashed so bisect doesn’t meander in trash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is fair but... > This is also fair but... Ok, so we can agree that my assesment is fair, but it remains to be seen how the data protection story pans out. >> Instead they have sold their soul to the highest (and only) bidder. > It seems they can't continue doing this, given the ongoing legal actions against Google. So let's see. Just to be clear: I think that Mozilla should have taken that money (and possibly…
> Ok, so we can agree that my assesment is fair My point is that your assessment is largely irrelevant to your original message about the data protection. It doesn't really support it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub PRs don't solve anything about that, but I wouldn't have to spend (waste) time figuring out the contribution process. At least I learned a few things writing the patches. I learned nothing of value dealing with git email or Phabricator. It's just work of the boring and tedious kind.
Dealing with github is the boring and tedious thing, you have to run huge amount of proprietary javascript, keep up with their weird UX changes, start X11 to open a browser to render their html, overclock your CPU for a large PR review conversation to scroll without locking up your computer for minutes, constantly click "load more" since their webpage keeps hiding comments (while still lagging massively)... Email is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I am aware. I didn't claim anything else. My clients don't use GitHub. Most of my clients do use Git. (some use other VCS) What made you think I thought differently?
Because the comment you replied to never mentioned GitHub. I thought you didn’t know the difference. Linus created Git.