• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 18th, 2023

help-circle

  • efstajas@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@programming.devCoomitter be like
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Honestly, I’ve worked with a few teams that use conventional commits, some even enforcing it through CI, and I don’t think I’ve ever thought “damn, I’m glad we’re doing this”. Granted, all the teams I’ve been on were working on user facing products with rolling release where main always = prod, and there was zero need for auto-generating changelogs, or analyzing the git history in any way. In my experience, trying to roughly follow 1 feature / change per PR and then just squash-merging PRs to main is really just … totally fine, if that’s what you’re doing.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that while conv commits are neat and all, the overhead really isn’t really always worth it. If you’re developing an SDK or OSS package and you need changelogs, sure. Other than that, really, what’s the point?



  • How do you know this? Of course there are lots of reasons for why they’d want to enforce minimum browser versions. But security might very well be one of them. Especially if you’re a bank you probably feel bad about sending session tokens to a browser that potentially has known security vulnerabilities.

    And sure, the user agent isn’t a sure way to tell whether a browser is outdated, but in 95% of cases it’s good enough, and people that know enough to understand the block shouldn’t apply to them can bypass it easily anyway.














  • I see this point a lot and I don’t get it at all. You can do something awesome, free and open-source but use tools that aren’t, especially when we’re talking about community building. Sure, you can do your outreach exclusively on Mastodon or Farcaster, but the most eyes just happen to be on closed platforms, so it’d just be self-sabotage. Doing the only thing that makes sense doesn’t make you a hypocrite.