I've used git exactly once, and that was last weekend to pull down Spring Security source. So no argument I need more time in git to comment on git specific process. But did you miss the article summary stating that this should be discussed regardless of the source control flavour?
Typical work flow in git is...
What Linus is saying is that step 5 can cause trouble. Instead of making a branch of clone's master, you should use the latest tag instead. This is not the way you'd do it on any small or medium project.
Therein lies the rub. It all depends on the size of the project, number of contributors, maturity of the code, stability of master. Where I work, you don't just check in random non-working changes. Our trunk (yes we work with SVN) is always stable, except in the very early stages of project development.
Merging your changes will always cause trouble if the changes are incompatible/conflict. It doesn't matter what point you merge from. Is there some git specific problem or bug that I don't know about here?? If you can't count on your team communicating and co-ordinating on the master/trunk/head, then yeah working from a known stable point and creating patches from that makes perfect sense. But again this isn't news, and it isn't git specific.
If there is life swimming in a big ocean under the ice of Europa, the question becomes: how does it taste?
Not if you're Kirk. The questions revolve around whether any part of it is green, what it is anatomically possible to do with it, and what body parts will fall off if you do engage in such activity.
Methinks you might want to expand your range at the bottom a bit. I suspect it will be something along the lines of "We've discovered evidence that some precursor to life may have been present on this extraterrestrial body--or may not, depending heavily on your interpretation of some very ambiguous data."
I for one welcome our ambiguous extra-terrestrial precursor overlords.
> I'm sorry but I've never been tempted to branch from an unstable point, and I'd be horrified if anyone on my time tried to do so.
What?
This would happen just checking out the latest version, then start writing some code. How is that a practise that you should be "horrified" by ?
What on earth are you talking about? No, you do not automatically branch every time you check in or check out code. I think you need to go back and read up on the concept of a branch.
The whole story seems to be summed up by: "Don't just branch from some random point. Wait until your code is stable and branch from that." and "Create these stable points from which you can branch as often as is practical". I'm sorry but I've never been tempted to branch from an unstable point, and I'd be horrified if anyone on my time tried to do so.
As for only adding features to a stable release I find that depends on the size, complexity and maturity of the project. Early on nothing is feature complete and everyone tends to work on an unstable head/trunk/master/whatever-your-scm-calls-it. Once development has settled down and there's been a release, it's much more controlled and people do tend to add their code from a stable point.
I'm sorry I just don't see any life changing revelations here.
I assure you that this review was NOT an advertisement. I can definitely see the need for a basic overview of what Moodle is and the criticism surrounding that but I don't want this book review to be looked at as "fake". It's sitting by my work desk now with bookmarks and references. It was the best Moodle book I've read so far!
I didn't say your review was fake. Just that it looked like advertising. My god man, how many have you read?
The first couple of sentences should explain what the hell "Moodle" is. All I know after reading your introduction is that it's a thing of some kind with plugins....
Using a simulator and driving a normal car at normal speeds doesn't suddenly make you qualified for taking high G's or taking corners at 100.
By electric vehicles we were talking about cars, not mopeds. You need to be a qualified electrician in most places to be allowed to fiddle with mains electricity. Otherwise if your house burns down, forget the insurance. Potato canons have mammed people before. Get a damnned clue!
I don't know of anywhere that just flying an RC plane legally requires instruction. I've flown all kinds of RC aircraft with no instruction whatsoever (only lots of simulator time, which with today's highly crash-resistant fly-by-wire RC aircraft, you could probably go without).
Where are you from? Check out the rules for your local modelling body. In a lot of places you're suppose to have your bronze wings to fly solo and your gold wings before you do public displays. That means you've been tested by a qualified instruction.
And yet, he put in lap times within 3 seconds of a professional racer, and didn't hurt anybody.
Yes, but I still say that with his only training being a simulator he's lucky not to have killed anyone.
There seems to be a theory of life that nobody should be allowed to do anything if they haven't been hand-trained by a professional. How did anything get started?
There is a difference between doing something for the first time and doing something exceedingly dangerous to yourself and others without having the good sense to build up the skill. That is the difference between the Wright Brothers and some idiot that straps on wings and jumps off a cliff: Careful buildup and calculated risks.
Do stuff. Do stuff for yourself. Think through the risks, consider all of the angles possible, and then bloody well do impressive things.
Thinking through the risks isn't enough. 1 in 1000 people might get away with it and be considered rock stars. The other 999 will be up for Darwin awards. If you're going to build up to doing something new and revolutionary, you do it sanely and in small steps if you want to have a chance. If someone's already done that for you, you learn from them.
You think everyone that is going to fly a remote-controlled airplane should go through an instructor?
Given that it's the law in most places, HELL YES!
Did you drop a sippy cup on your toe as a child?
Sure. And so has my son. I don't give him knives to play with though.
Go design and build some potato cannons, or hack together an electric vehicle from parts, or build your own garage. As much as I am a nanny-state hugging liberal, at some point the only person responsible for your life is you.
And what happens when your potato canon or electric vehicle mame or kill someone? You don't live in a vacuum. Some things like playing with mains electricity, building weapons and driving 1 tonne vehicles OUGHT to be regulated.
He definitely wasn't just given a car and told "have at it". If you RTFA, you'd see that he was put through a slower initial lap to ensure the car (and i presume he) was okay, and that he worked up to 100mph turns over the 15 laps. He was at a place that does 3-day courses in how to drive race cars, so he had professionals there to make sure everything was okay.
You're kidding right? 15 laps and y ou're allowed to do 100km/hr on a bend? 3 days and you're a racing expert? A newb puking in their helment and being permitted to continue on. No wonder people die in the sport.
I'm a huge fan of simulators as training tools. I use simulators for remote control airplane flight and credit them with the difference between success and failure in the hobby. Even though their potential for harm is much less than a race car, it's not zero, and I still used a real instructor to get me flying safely.
Letting any driver who hasn't become accustomed to the real thing through the course of real training drive at professional race car driver speeds is nothing short of irresponsible. The thought of jumping behind the wheel of a race car till you puke and then going for even more laps, just because you're a champion on the sim, is mind-boggling. I'd say if he'd had a brain fart and taken himself or someone else out, someone would be up on manslaughter charges for allowing it.
Managers hate being left out. Too bad too... Agile works quite well and generally creates good software and happy clients. Most of the process software only leaves happy sales-people. (process software sales-people specifically).
In my experience FRAgile is all about justifying business people being too lazy to come up with a spec and then when they finally do give you something (well into development) changing their mind and the spec every five minutes. They say jump. If you're "agile" you are suppose to say "how high" and they can then say "just start jumping and we'll tell you when you're up in the air". Agile only works at all if the developers have a better grasp in advance of the project starting of what the business wants.
Yes there are, but that doesn't mean it's a large market or a very large one percentage wise in the entire gaming market. Sure, there will always be those Tom Clancy/Dale Brown afcionados with the full HOTAS and cockpit setups, but there aren't very many of them. Not enough to sustain a large number of games or companies making such.
Again, you're talking shit. There is an entire economy built on flight simulation. Try telling CH Products, Abacus, Just Flight, Flight 1, Commercial Level Simulations, Carenado, Eaglesoft, Wilco, Feelthere, Alphasim, Captain Sim, PMDG, Aerosim, Realair, Cloud 9, Proflight X-Plane, and Saitek that there isn't a large enough market. That is not an exhaustive list by any means and all but the last name on it make nothing but flight simulation products.
Is that enough companies for you? And that is with MSFS officially killed off for a couple of years. I suppose you're going to start going on about their size because they're not as large as EA or Activision?
You sir are an idiot. Attitudes like yours kill off flight simulation in favour of idiotic unoriginal FPS. You have NO idea what you're talking about but you keep insisting you know everything there is to know about the flight sim market and unfortunately if there are enough of you talking such horseshit business people listen.
Nobody does flight sims for consoles, because they know they won't sell, the market isn't there. It's not that they couldn't do one (especially on the more modern consoles with the mouse and keyboard support), it's just that they know it's not a good idea.
You're simply talking out of your backside. There are many many companies that specialise in addons for the major sims. If Microsoft hadn't botched FSX (buggier than ever, required a computer that hadn't been created yet) then killed off the franchise there would be even more interest. There are even companies that make specialised hardware.
What you're actually saying is YOU have no interest. That's fine until you start to spread ignorant bullshit about the state of the hobby.
This was entirely predictable. It's not easy to convince people to let other people--strangers of the same gender--touch them intimately as a form of protest.
So you're saying it should have been billed as entertainment instead? It's not my thing but I hear a significant portion of the population swings that way.
Your job related worries will pale into comparison. Stress will take on new meaning. Of course while they're infants you'll age 10 years in 2. And that's assuming you have a supportive partner.
I haven't seen anything innovative done on a PC that couldn't have been done on a PS2. Crysis 2 is innovative? Oh please.
I agree Crysis is just eyecandy for the most part. But show me a decent flight simulator on an X-Box or PS3 or Wii. I am NOT talking about a shoot-em-up. I'm talking about something that will rival MS Flight Sim or X-Plane.
It's not news if it's decades old. The author admits in his article that the codes have well and truly been superseded. What it's clear to me is that he's trying to publicise his book (he does link to the free PDF version - so I doubt his only motivation is money). He has reviewed his own book on Amazon twice: "Brings theory to life" and "An exciting and up-to-date text"
Customer reviews are not as glowing as his own. "Good book - but few arguments need revision from theorists" and "A reservoir of information - Yet few problems"
Insightful my ass. Used correctly spring has cut down a ton of code and made things much more flexible for us. How much? 4 years worth of work was thrown away and rebuilt in 5 months!
Then your old code was crap, and your current requirements are childishly simple.
The frameworks are junk. My latest example was with Spring Security. Try doing something as simple as forcing the user to a change password page when their password expires. Never mind that you have to build your own user model from scratch, forcing change password requires setting up a custom filter to do it properly.
The standard way of doing it - overriding authentication control classes - leaves a user with an expired password able to go to any page by typing in the full URL. Or you can mess with the authentication object and assign a custom role for change password (and no other roles) but then you have to reload the authenticated user with proper roles once they have changed password.
Yet I've seen comments from Ben Alex that though it's a common requirement the current mechanisms are good enough. FUCK THAT. Changing an expired password is a basic requirement.
As a Java developer i have to say friends don't let friends use Spring. Anything so branded will
- introduce a bucketload of complexity - lack sufficient documentation for the latest version, leaving you trawling Internet boards or scrambling to have a Spring consultant or trainer come and visit so you can configure or customise your application - require you to jump through hoops to implement basic features that are commonly requested but not catered for by default - change significantly leaving you to rework everything with each major revision, and each major revisiion will fix some bugs and introduce a slew more - use advanced language and framework features to implement basic things, leaving you in need of an advanced developer where you should be able to use a grad - never pay off by reducing complexity the way it claims it will
Rolling your own may not be the way to do it in this day and age, but it's preferable to the nightmare that is Spring. You have been warned.
Slashdot Mirror
And you need to read up on the concept of git.
Seriously, this isn't SVN.
I've used git exactly once, and that was last weekend to pull down Spring Security source. So no argument I need more time in git to comment on git specific process. But did you miss the article summary stating that this should be discussed regardless of the source control flavour?
Typical work flow in git is...
What Linus is saying is that step 5 can cause trouble. Instead of making a branch of clone's master, you should use the latest tag instead. This is not the way you'd do it on any small or medium project.
Therein lies the rub. It all depends on the size of the project, number of contributors, maturity of the code, stability of master. Where I work, you don't just check in random non-working changes. Our trunk (yes we work with SVN) is always stable, except in the very early stages of project development.
Merging your changes will always cause trouble if the changes are incompatible/conflict. It doesn't matter what point you merge from. Is there some git specific problem or bug that I don't know about here?? If you can't count on your team communicating and co-ordinating on the master/trunk/head, then yeah working from a known stable point and creating patches from that makes perfect sense. But again this isn't news, and it isn't git specific.
If there is life swimming in a big ocean under the ice of Europa, the question becomes: how does it taste?
Not if you're Kirk. The questions revolve around whether any part of it is green, what it is anatomically possible to do with it, and what body parts will fall off if you do engage in such activity.
Methinks you might want to expand your range at the bottom a bit. I suspect it will be something along the lines of "We've discovered evidence that some precursor to life may have been present on this extraterrestrial body--or may not, depending heavily on your interpretation of some very ambiguous data."
I for one welcome our ambiguous extra-terrestrial precursor overlords.
> I'm sorry but I've never been tempted to branch from an unstable point, and I'd be horrified if anyone on my time tried to do so.
What?
This would happen just checking out the latest version, then start writing some code. How is that a practise that you should be "horrified" by ?
What on earth are you talking about? No, you do not automatically branch every time you check in or check out code. I think you need to go back and read up on the concept of a branch.
The whole story seems to be summed up by: "Don't just branch from some random point. Wait until your code is stable and branch from that." and "Create these stable points from which you can branch as often as is practical". I'm sorry but I've never been tempted to branch from an unstable point, and I'd be horrified if anyone on my time tried to do so.
As for only adding features to a stable release I find that depends on the size, complexity and maturity of the project. Early on nothing is feature complete and everyone tends to work on an unstable head/trunk/master/whatever-your-scm-calls-it. Once development has settled down and there's been a release, it's much more controlled and people do tend to add their code from a stable point.
I'm sorry I just don't see any life changing revelations here.
I assure you that this review was NOT an advertisement. I can definitely see the need for a basic overview of what Moodle is and the criticism surrounding that but I don't want this book review to be looked at as "fake". It's sitting by my work desk now with bookmarks and references. It was the best Moodle book I've read so far!
I didn't say your review was fake. Just that it looked like advertising. My god man, how many have you read?
$1.3 billion eh? By RIAA accounting standards that sounds to me like they may have copied 7, or maybe even 8 songs! Burn!!!
The first couple of sentences should explain what the hell "Moodle" is. All I know after reading your introduction is that it's a thing of some kind with plugins....
Agree, but it's easy to Google...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moodle
http://moodle.com.au/
http://download.moodle.org/
It's a real product but this article smacks of being an advertisement.
Using a simulator and driving a normal car at normal speeds doesn't suddenly make you qualified for taking high G's or taking corners at 100.
By electric vehicles we were talking about cars, not mopeds. You need to be a qualified electrician in most places to be allowed to fiddle with mains electricity. Otherwise if your house burns down, forget the insurance. Potato canons have mammed people before. Get a damnned clue!
LOLWUT?
I don't know of anywhere that just flying an RC plane legally requires instruction. I've flown all kinds of RC aircraft with no instruction whatsoever (only lots of simulator time, which with today's highly crash-resistant fly-by-wire RC aircraft, you could probably go without).
Where are you from? Check out the rules for your local modelling body. In a lot of places you're suppose to have your bronze wings to fly solo and your gold wings before you do public displays. That means you've been tested by a qualified instruction.
And yet, he put in lap times within 3 seconds of a professional racer, and didn't hurt anybody.
Yes, but I still say that with his only training being a simulator he's lucky not to have killed anyone.
There seems to be a theory of life that nobody should be allowed to do anything if they haven't been hand-trained by a professional. How did anything get started?
There is a difference between doing something for the first time and doing something exceedingly dangerous to yourself and others without having the good sense to build up the skill. That is the difference between the Wright Brothers and some idiot that straps on wings and jumps off a cliff: Careful buildup and calculated risks.
Do stuff. Do stuff for yourself. Think through the risks, consider all of the angles possible, and then bloody well do impressive things.
Thinking through the risks isn't enough. 1 in 1000 people might get away with it and be considered rock stars. The other 999 will be up for Darwin awards. If you're going to build up to doing something new and revolutionary, you do it sanely and in small steps if you want to have a chance. If someone's already done that for you, you learn from them.
You think everyone that is going to fly a remote-controlled airplane should go through an instructor?
Given that it's the law in most places, HELL YES!
Did you drop a sippy cup on your toe as a child?
Sure. And so has my son. I don't give him knives to play with though.
Go design and build some potato cannons, or hack together an electric vehicle from parts, or build your own garage. As much as I am a nanny-state hugging liberal, at some point the only person responsible for your life is you.
And what happens when your potato canon or electric vehicle mame or kill someone? You don't live in a vacuum. Some things like playing with mains electricity, building weapons and driving 1 tonne vehicles OUGHT to be regulated.
He definitely wasn't just given a car and told "have at it". If you RTFA, you'd see that he was put through a slower initial lap to ensure the car (and i presume he) was okay, and that he worked up to 100mph turns over the 15 laps. He was at a place that does 3-day courses in how to drive race cars, so he had professionals there to make sure everything was okay.
You're kidding right? 15 laps and y ou're allowed to do 100km/hr on a bend? 3 days and you're a racing expert? A newb puking in their helment and being permitted to continue on. No wonder people die in the sport.
I'm a huge fan of simulators as training tools. I use simulators for remote control airplane flight and credit them with the difference between success and failure in the hobby. Even though their potential for harm is much less than a race car, it's not zero, and I still used a real instructor to get me flying safely.
Letting any driver who hasn't become accustomed to the real thing through the course of real training drive at professional race car driver speeds is nothing short of irresponsible. The thought of jumping behind the wheel of a race car till you puke and then going for even more laps, just because you're a champion on the sim, is mind-boggling. I'd say if he'd had a brain fart and taken himself or someone else out, someone would be up on manslaughter charges for allowing it.
Managers hate being left out. Too bad too ... Agile works quite well and generally creates good software and happy clients. Most of the process software only leaves happy sales-people. (process software sales-people specifically).
In my experience FRAgile is all about justifying business people being too lazy to come up with a spec and then when they finally do give you something (well into development) changing their mind and the spec every five minutes. They say jump. If you're "agile" you are suppose to say "how high" and they can then say "just start jumping and we'll tell you when you're up in the air". Agile only works at all if the developers have a better grasp in advance of the project starting of what the business wants.
Yes there are, but that doesn't mean it's a large market or a very large one percentage wise in the entire gaming market. Sure, there will always be those Tom Clancy/Dale Brown afcionados with the full HOTAS and cockpit setups, but there aren't very many of them. Not enough to sustain a large number of games or companies making such.
Again, you're talking shit. There is an entire economy built on flight simulation. Try telling CH Products, Abacus, Just Flight, Flight 1, Commercial Level Simulations, Carenado, Eaglesoft, Wilco, Feelthere, Alphasim, Captain Sim, PMDG, Aerosim, Realair, Cloud 9, Proflight X-Plane, and Saitek that there isn't a large enough market. That is not an exhaustive list by any means and all but the last name on it make nothing but flight simulation products.
Is that enough companies for you? And that is with MSFS officially killed off for a couple of years. I suppose you're going to start going on about their size because they're not as large as EA or Activision?
You sir are an idiot. Attitudes like yours kill off flight simulation in favour of idiotic unoriginal FPS. You have NO idea what you're talking about but you keep insisting you know everything there is to know about the flight sim market and unfortunately if there are enough of you talking such horseshit business people listen.
Nobody does flight sims for consoles, because they know they won't sell, the market isn't there. It's not that they couldn't do one (especially on the more modern consoles with the mouse and keyboard support), it's just that they know it's not a good idea.
You're simply talking out of your backside. There are many many companies that specialise in addons for the major sims. If Microsoft hadn't botched FSX (buggier than ever, required a computer that hadn't been created yet) then killed off the franchise there would be even more interest. There are even companies that make specialised hardware.
What you're actually saying is YOU have no interest. That's fine until you start to spread ignorant bullshit about the state of the hobby.
This was entirely predictable. It's not easy to convince people to let other people--strangers of the same gender--touch them intimately as a form of protest.
So you're saying it should have been billed as entertainment instead? It's not my thing but I hear a significant portion of the population swings that way.
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you go - Rick Astley, "Never Gonna Give You Up"
... never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.
Your job related worries will pale into comparison. Stress will take on new meaning. Of course while they're infants you'll age 10 years in 2. And that's assuming you have a supportive partner.
I haven't seen anything innovative done on a PC that couldn't have been done on a PS2. Crysis 2 is innovative? Oh please.
I agree Crysis is just eyecandy for the most part. But show me a decent flight simulator on an X-Box or PS3 or Wii. I am NOT talking about a shoot-em-up. I'm talking about something that will rival MS Flight Sim or X-Plane.
They bypassed the UAC? We're DOOMED!
Are you sure you want to bypass UAC? Allow or Cancel?
It's not news if it's decades old. The author admits in his article that the codes have well and truly been superseded. What it's clear to me is that he's trying to publicise his book (he does link to the free PDF version - so I doubt his only motivation is money). He has reviewed his own book on Amazon twice: "Brings theory to life" and "An exciting and up-to-date text"
http://www.amazon.ca/product-reviews/0521642981/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
Customer reviews are not as glowing as his own. "Good book - but few arguments need revision from theorists" and "A reservoir of information - Yet few problems"
Insightful my ass. Used correctly spring has cut down a ton of code and made things much more flexible for us. How much? 4 years worth of work was thrown away and rebuilt in 5 months!
Then your old code was crap, and your current requirements are childishly simple.
The frameworks are junk. My latest example was with Spring Security. Try doing something as simple as forcing the user to a change password page when their password expires. Never mind that you have to build your own user model from scratch, forcing change password requires setting up a custom filter to do it properly.
The standard way of doing it - overriding authentication control classes - leaves a user with an expired password able to go to any page by typing in the full URL. Or you can mess with the authentication object and assign a custom role for change password (and no other roles) but then you have to reload the authenticated user with proper roles once they have changed password.
Yet I've seen comments from Ben Alex that though it's a common requirement the current mechanisms are good enough. FUCK THAT. Changing an expired password is a basic requirement.
As a Java developer i have to say friends don't let friends use Spring. Anything so branded will
- introduce a bucketload of complexity
- lack sufficient documentation for the latest version, leaving you trawling Internet boards or scrambling to have a Spring consultant or trainer come and visit so you can configure or customise your application
- require you to jump through hoops to implement basic features that are commonly requested but not catered for by default
- change significantly leaving you to rework everything with each major revision, and each major revisiion will fix some bugs and introduce a slew more
- use advanced language and framework features to implement basic things, leaving you in need of an advanced developer where you should be able to use a grad
- never pay off by reducing complexity the way it claims it will
Rolling your own may not be the way to do it in this day and age, but it's preferable to the nightmare that is Spring. You have been warned.
I heard they were suing the military.....
ABOOOUT FACE!