My browser has a default font size of 18 set. The site overrides that with a default base font size of 12px, then increases it to 13px for content text. That’s way too small for me on my screen. At least to read it comfortably. Or for people who need more accessible text/font.
The field is incredibly broad. Choose a field or employer or project that’s not doing that an you’re fine.
Are you sure? I’m not very active in that ecosystem, but if that was prevalent in the past, surely there’s still tutorials and stuff out there that people would follow and create such projects even today?
More than that, it seems to me that the official python docs for packaging [still] talks about setup.py. Why would people not use that?
got it; arse
It would certainly be an issue if you didn’t have one
The problem was named after an incident in 1996 in which AOL’s profanity filter prevented residents of the town of Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, England, from creating accounts with AOL, because the town’s name contains the substring “cunt”.
haha
those are terms, this is substrings within words
I haven’t seen branches or variables being called arse
Then again, I do like to catch exceptions as up
so I can throw up
Simple changes require only simple reviews.
Responsibility is shared. It’s not one or the other.
Many people don’t know what they’re doing. That’s kind of expected. But a tool provider and seller should know what they’re doing. Enabling people to behave in a negative way should be questioned. Maybe it’s a consequence of enablement, or maybe it’s bad design or marketing. Where criticism is certainly warranted.
Commit with Co-authored-by: Copilot
or maybe better --author=Copilot
It would certainly help evaluate submissions to have that context
he l p
looks like a multi-threading or concurrency issue
OS stands for “Oh Shit!”
Notably for CPU only. And on other platforms they already did.
Broadcom would like to clarify that while using KVM for the CPU virtualization, they will continue to rely on all of the existing VMware virtual devices for graphics and other functionality. Also on both macOS and Windows they have migrated to the native CPU virtualization frameworks.
I found it hard to follow despite C# being my main driver.
Using ref
, in the past, has been about modifiable variable references.
All these introductions, even when following C# changes across recent versions, were never something I actively used, apart from the occasional adding ref to structs so they can contain existing ref struct types. It never seems necessary.
Even without ref you use reference and struct types, where reference content can be modified elsewhere. And IDisposable
for object lifetimes with cleanup.
Have you considered creating a ticket called “Can’t ask questions without joining discord”?
Do you think it would have more answers if it were on GitHub discussions?
Release must be documented
It’s not a must [unless you put it into a contract], it’s a should or would be nice
Many, if not most, projects don’t follow a good, obvious, transparent, documented release or change management.
I wish for it, too, but it’s not the reality of projects. Most people don’t seem to care about it as much as I do.
I agree blind acceptance/merging is problematic. But for some projects (small scope/size/personal-FOSS, trustworthy upstream) I see it as pragmatic rather than problematic.
The follow-up quotes
In your specific case, the problem is your employer is on that list [of sanctioned entities]. If there’s been a mistake and your employer isn’t on the list, that’s the documentation Greg is looking for.
I would consider three four approaches.
1. Commit and push manually and deliberately
I commit changes early and often anyway. I also push regularly, seeing the remote as a safe and remote (as in backup) baseline and reference state.
The question would be: Do I switch when I’m still exploring things in the workspace, without committing when switching or moving away from it, and I would want those on the other PC? Then this would not be enough.
2. Auto-push all local git references into a separate space on the git remote
Git branches are refs, commit pointers, just like other refs are. And they can be put under arbitrary paths. refs/heads/
holds branches. I can replicate and regularly update all my branches under refs/pcreplica/laptop/*
. And then on the other PC, list or fetch those, individually, or all of them, regularly automatically, or manually.
git push origin refs/heads/*:refs/pcreplica/laptop/*
git ls-remote
git fetch origin refs/pcreplica/laptop/*:refs/laptop/*
3. Auto-push the/a local branch like you suggested
my concern here would be; is only one branch enough? is only the current branch enough?
4. Remoting into the other system
Are the systems both online? Can I remote into / connect into it when need be?
Has features ✅
we should just write the code how it should be
Notably, that’s not what he says. He didn’t say in general. He said “for once, [after this already long discussion], let’s push back here”. (Literally “this time we push back”)
who need a secure OS (all of them) will opt to not use Linux if it doesn’t plug these holes
I’m not so sure about that. He’s making a fair assessment. These are very intricate attack vectors. Security assessment is risk assessment either way. Whether you’re weighing a significant performance loss against low risk potentially high impact attack vectors or assess the risk directly doesn’t make that much of a difference.
These are so intricate and unlikely to occur, with other firmware patches in line, or alternative hardware, that there’s alternative options and acceptable risk.
Given that it is high level, I assume you did not want to include this. I’ll mention it here in a comment either way. Text form in the commit message.
I really like using conventional commit messages and introduced it in my projects. We defined a few types, and more leniently choose optional scopes. It’s very useful for categorizing and skimming through commit lists, and for generating changelogs/release notes. `fix(account): Use correct hasing xy"
Consistent imperative form is important to me too. The commit message examples talks about “Summary of changes”, which has no verb, and so, may mislead to a different undesirable form of summarizing changes. (“Change xy” instead of “changed xy” or “[now] does xy [at runtime]” or “did z”.)
I didn’t fully read it, only skimmed, so excuse me if I missed mentions of the commit message text form. It seems very elaborate otherwise.