I'm trying to remember if anyone complained like this about the Apple Card offers in Apple Wallet. For some reason advertising their credit card is completely fine, but advertising their movie is where people get out the pitchforks? Not defending either, I think both are egregious. I just think it's interesting.
Completely agree! Felt like such a refresh right up until the suggestions to follow on the Musk platform – it’s basically the same as suggesting to follow on Truth Social nowadays, only that Musk has more money than Trump could ever dream off
Not the author, but when I use the phrase I mean each commit accomplishes a single important thing, but also that each commit is complete: it includes necessary tests for example. IMO every commit that lands on `main` must pass the test suite (this means intermediate commits should be squashed into that atomic commit).
The more I've been doing open source maintenance and contributions where there isn't as much context between the code author and reviewer, the more I've been pushing for a little more than this.
- Add tests in a commit *before* the fix. They should pass, showing the behavior before your change. Then, the commit with your change will update the tests. The diff between these commits represents the change in behavior. This helps the author test their tests (I've written tests thinking they covered the relevant case but didn't), the reviewer to more precisely see the change in behavior and comment on it, and the wider community to understand what the PR description is about.
- Where reasonable, find ways to split code changes out of feature / fix commits into refactor commits. Reading a diff top-down doesn't tell you anything; you need to jump around a lot to see how the parts interact. By splitting it up, you can more quickly understand each piece and the series of commits tells a story of how the feature of fix came to be.
- Commits are atomic while PRs tell a story, as long as it doesn't get too big. Refactor are usually leading towards a goal and having them tied together with that goal helps to provide the context to understand it all. However, this has to be balanced with the fact that larger reviews mean more things are missed on each pass and its different things on each pass, causing a lot of "20 rounds of feedback in and I just noticed this major problem".
In particular, the refactors leading up to the final change made it so the actual fix was a one line change. It also linked out to the prior refactors that I split out into separate PRs to keep this one smaller.
I agree, but I usually explain (and do) this from the side of fixing a bug, but where the test suite is currently passing: first commit adds the failing test (shows that it would have caught the error), second commit makes it pass.
Also agree with GP that each commit on master should be passing/deployable/etc., but I don't see why they can't be merge commits of a branch that wasn't like that.
That still interferes with `git bisect`. Make the test pass in history but then make it fail in your working directory and work to get it to pass before committing.
I absolutely love that testing suggestion - I'd never considered shipping a whole separate commit adding the OLD test first, but having a second commit that then updates that test to illustrate the change in behavior is such an obviously good idea.
Even ignoring the rude name-calling, I usually find that these kind of comments are poorly thought-out and come from an unrealistic idea of name ownership. I wasn’t familiar with any other D2 and want to give the benefit of the doubt, so I went through a few pages of search results for “D2 language”. Didn’t see any other projects. Are you thinking of the D3 JavaScript charting library?
https://web.archive.org (take a screenshot option if you have a login and it's JS madness WBM can't handle), https://archive.ph, etc (hopefully captured more than one if possible) - random screenshots are proof of absolutely nothing.
Also because xitter provides a broader discussion platform and reach compared to only HN (even though I highly appreciate the HN content). But yeah, the xitter post should preferably also contain that url to the source.
You’re saying the university denied their application because they referred to their homebrew device as a “laptop” and not a “cyberdeck”? I’m far from any of the worlds involved, but that just seems extremely unlikely to be the reason. In fact I’d expect the opposite—the uni not understanding that an applicant’s “cyberdeck” is actually a homemade laptop—a concept anyone can grasp
What kind of issue do you have in mind? By all accounts, the functionality or OpenOffice, LibreOffice, and Google’s suite are the same as Microsoft Office. There’s no theft unless they _actually stole intellectual property_
The commenter is confused, they mean infringing, not theft.
Theft is theft, no reason to get IP law involved.
Infringement can happen without intent. I don't know who would be liable, the open source company with little revenue, or the customers who are just using the software.
Say big Hooli company builds product/platform “A” and charges arm and foot for usage. Having tried the platform I personally find it ridiculous anybody is paying for this because I successfully (lone developer) hack together a trimmed down working clone of the core system *in under a week*. Furthermore, core aspects of Product/Platform “A” are open-source technology, in non trivial ways (like I’m not saying “oh they use YML for config files”, I’m saying “core engine component they’re using is explicitly open source”).
If I decide to open source my clone, am I asking for trouble?
This is all hypothetical, I’m not soliciting actual legal advice.
