Anonymous Coward wrote:
> [ jfruh wrote:
> > "Larry Page revealed that he'd been suffering from a vocal cord
> > ailment that impaired his ability to speak for more than a year.
> >...]
>
> Easy for him to say...
Wait, wha?
With Git, you can have better revision numbers
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 1
Whoever does the merging into your "master" repository has the ability to make it look however they want. If your devs really dislike SHA1s, then request that the master repo start employing tags. It's not hard; after the repo admin merges in new code, he can tag it according to whatever convention you like.
This is way better than arcane auto-generated version numbers. Will this small workflow change, you can have "meaningful" version numbers.
My favorite thing about Git is this: it is possible to make an extremely consumer friendly code repository. As "master" repo admin, you have the power to reorder, tag, squash, fast-forward, not fast-forward, whatever, until everything is just right. Then you can push to the master repo and listen to the oohs and ahhs as your devs (and later, your maintenance programmers) easily grok the gitk graph.
Suppose developer A merges the master branch into a development branch (which is not ready for merging into the master). Git will record a merge commit, attributed to developer A. Developer B then accidentally pushes the development branch onto the master. This is now a fast-forward merge, so no additional commit will be created, and the mistake is not attributable to developer B (and it will look like developer A's mistake, because their commit will appear at the tip).
We use git here in a corporate environment, and this problem absolutely does not happen, because:
Only special people have commit rights to the official repo
Those people always force a merge commit
Forcing a merge commit means using the --no-ff flag, which disallows any fast-forward merges. In this way, the person who is doing the merge into the official repository has a special merge commit with his name all over it.
This is not likely to be accidentally subverted; these official repo caretakers only use Git GUI (they're not really command-line types), and they use a git gui command I wrote for them that forces this behavior. Here it is, taken from.gitconfig:
[guitool "origin/pull merge request into local branch (Args = merge request number, Revision = local branch) "] ; fetch the latest from origin ; get off of the current local branch (in case it is the target) ; force the target local branch to match the origin branch it tracks ; checkout local target branch ; pull merge request into target local branch (and force merge commit) cmd = git fetch origin && git checkout HEAD^ && git branch -f $REVISION origin/${REVISION} && git checkout $REVISION && git pull --no-ff origin refs/merge-requests/${ARGS} argprompt = yes revprompt = yes
If you're really paranoid about this, git offers pre-commit hooks, which could be used to reject any fast-forward merge into the master branch of the official repository.
At any rate, one would assume someone is ultimately responsible for checking official commits for their adherence to the no-fast-forward standard. If a bogus commit slips in it could always be redone, barring some ridiculous deployment system that rolls out production code instantly upon commit.
"The best method" is probably a really vague concept.
I disagree completely. The "best" method varies widely, because it is specific to the RDBMS you're using.
Tom Kyte makes an excellent case for this in chapter 1 of his book Expert Oracle Database Architecture. He says that treating the database like a black box (i.e. taking a database-agnostic approach) is the wrong way to go; that a lack of fundamental understanding about your db of choice will hurt your project. He goes on to give some great details starting here.
If the OP had mentioned Oracle, then I would have recommend the whole book. Nonetheless, the first chapter might prove a beneficial read.
For a long time I was looking at various free or demo CAD programs to do quick floorplans and renovation ideas. But what I really wanted was a 3D sketch tool that would show me the measurements etc.
SketchUp is that tool, and it's great. Evidently it can export to regular CAD programs so you can generate blueprints, etc., and also can export vector graphics.
Balkanization implies gatekeepers. Pay attention to the power loci that surround admin assistants, front desk staff, etc. If you are blessed with the ability to really like and appreciate other people, be sure to make friends in "low" places. Everything will be easier, and besides, friends can make anything bearable.
BACKGROUND I bought my mini for the software. Years ago I paid for a miniDV camcorder, because I knew that someday I would be able to afford a computer to edit the footage with. That day finally came!:-)
But the HDD stinks. External SATA is possible, and the best answer. Here's why...
OPTIONS FW 400 While I *might* go for an external FW 400 solution, the mini only has one FW port... and copying DV material from a camcorder to a FW HDD on the same channel is a no-no.
USB 2.0 slower than FW 400 on the mini, according to what I've read. But more importantly, the mini won't boot from USB.
External 3.5" PATA Ah, now we're talking! Check out these articles: 4 sweet solutions, all of which allow use of 3.5" HDDs on the mini's own ATA/100 controller:
External 3.5" SATA The problem with the external PATA solutions is that the form factor sucks. Which got me thinking: If I could only use one of those fancy new SATA cables...
DETAILS I don't yet have the money to do this project, or you would have already heard the results.:-( But here is the plan:
Assemble the three components together (and trim off the unneeded power connection from the 2.5" to 3.5" cable adapter). You now have an assembly that fits within the space normally occupied by the mini's 2.5" HDD.
WARNING: the real unknown is whether or not you can actually then snake an SATA cable from the bridge board and out the back (or side) of the mini. But I think it will work. Assuming it does...
RESULTS There are more and more SATA drive enclosures hitting the market. This year the trend is multiplexing backplanes, so that you can RAID multiple SATA drives in the enclosure and connect them via one channe back to the computer.
Pick an attractive SATA drive enclosure, plug it in, connect it to the mini, and off you go!
Phil Lawrence -- feel free to email me if you'd like details about the success or failure of the project, once I get the parts together
Right, good message: do what you can, when you can.
But one of your later statements is troubling, though perhaps pragmatic: > I don't need evidence for [foo], because > I understand the theory. I don't need > evidence for [bar] because given my > understanding of [baz], I cannot see > how [foo] can't be the case.
According to this I should shorten my sermons to the kids on the scientific method to three points: 1. Observe 2. Hypothesize 3. Profit!:-)
Of course I don't have any more time to peer review experiments for/against [foo], [bar], or [baz] than you do. Oh wait I'm not even a "peer", so I guess I'm stuck with "Popular Mechanics" at the news stand.
But while that pragmaticism may be dictated by the direction *my* particular existence has gone, I'd at least like to still genuflect to the full Scientific Method, and hope "popular" mindshare like mine isn't the sum and whole of current science [funding | politics | directions-of-inquiry | conclusion-making].
You have made a succinct, well formed argument.
Your bullet points are all related to each other.
Your post has a nice beginning, middle, and end.
Excellent work!:-)
However, I would suggest that you did not learn your composition (or critical thinking) skills from wikipedia. Rather, you first developed a critical, "boot strap" layer of education that now serves you well.
Computers have nothing to add to this initial layer of education.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Coward wrote: ...] ...
> [ jfruh wrote:
> > "Larry Page revealed that he'd been suffering from a vocal cord
> > ailment that impaired his ability to speak for more than a year.
> >
>
> Easy for him to say
Wait, wha?
Whoever does the merging into your "master" repository has the ability to make it look however they want. If your devs really dislike SHA1s, then request that the master repo start employing tags. It's not hard; after the repo admin merges in new code, he can tag it according to whatever convention you like.
This is way better than arcane auto-generated version numbers. Will this small workflow change, you can have "meaningful" version numbers.
My favorite thing about Git is this: it is possible to make an extremely consumer friendly code repository. As "master" repo admin, you have the power to reorder, tag, squash, fast-forward, not fast-forward, whatever, until everything is just right. Then you can push to the master repo and listen to the oohs and ahhs as your devs (and later, your maintenance programmers) easily grok the gitk graph.
Suppose developer A merges the master branch into a development branch (which is not ready for merging into the master). Git will record a merge commit, attributed to developer A. Developer B then accidentally pushes the development branch onto the master. This is now a fast-forward merge, so no additional commit will be created, and the mistake is not attributable to developer B (and it will look like developer A's mistake, because their commit will appear at the tip).
We use git here in a corporate environment, and this problem absolutely does not happen, because:
Forcing a merge commit means using the --no-ff flag, which disallows any fast-forward merges. In this way, the person who is doing the merge into the official repository has a special merge commit with his name all over it.
This is not likely to be accidentally subverted; these official repo caretakers only use Git GUI (they're not really command-line types), and they use a git gui command I wrote for them that forces this behavior. Here it is, taken from .gitconfig:
If you're really paranoid about this, git offers pre-commit hooks, which could be used to reject any fast-forward merge into the master branch of the official repository.
At any rate, one would assume someone is ultimately responsible for checking official commits for their adherence to the no-fast-forward standard. If a bogus commit slips in it could always be redone, barring some ridiculous deployment system that rolls out production code instantly upon commit.
"The best method" is probably a really vague concept.
I disagree completely. The "best" method varies widely, because it is specific to the RDBMS you're using.
Tom Kyte makes an excellent case for this in chapter 1 of his book Expert Oracle Database Architecture. He says that treating the database like a black box (i.e. taking a database-agnostic approach) is the wrong way to go; that a lack of fundamental understanding about your db of choice will hurt your project. He goes on to give some great details starting here.
If the OP had mentioned Oracle, then I would have recommend the whole book. Nonetheless, the first chapter might prove a beneficial read.
Phil Lawrence
It's been done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumie
http://sketchup.com/ is a really amazing 3D design tool.
For a long time I was looking at various free or demo CAD programs to do quick floorplans and renovation ideas. But what I really wanted was a 3D sketch tool that would show me the measurements etc.
SketchUp is that tool, and it's great. Evidently it can export to regular CAD programs so you can generate blueprints, etc., and also can export vector graphics.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+balkaniza tion
Balkanization implies gatekeepers. Pay attention to the power loci that surround admin assistants, front desk staff, etc. If you are blessed with the ability to really like and appreciate other people, be sure to make friends in "low" places. Everything will be easier, and besides, friends can make anything bearable.
Phil
BACKGROUND :-)
t icles/mini/
t icles/mini/dock/
l e+IDC+2.5%22+IDE+Laptop+Gender+Changer
:-( But here is the plan:
I bought my mini for the software. Years ago I paid for a miniDV camcorder, because I knew that someday I would be able to afford a computer to edit the footage with. That day finally came!
But the HDD stinks. External SATA is possible, and the best answer. Here's why...
OPTIONS
FW 400
While I *might* go for an external FW 400 solution, the mini only has one FW port... and copying DV material from a camcorder to a FW HDD on the same channel is a no-no.
USB 2.0
slower than FW 400 on the mini, according to what I've read. But more importantly, the mini won't boot from USB.
External 3.5" PATA
Ah, now we're talking! Check out these articles: 4 sweet solutions, all of which allow use of 3.5" HDDs on the mini's own ATA/100 controller:
mini in a PC box
http://www.appletalk.com.au/articles/miniserver/
mini with an external drive box housing an ATA HDD
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/ar
mini ensconsed in a Centris 660
(Check out the XBench scores table)
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/ar
And best of all (IMHO), the purple mini
http://macmod.com/content/view/273/2/
External 3.5" SATA
The problem with the external PATA solutions is that the form factor sucks. Which got me thinking: If I could only use one of those fancy new SATA cables...
PARTS LIST
1. PATA to SATA bridgeboard:
http://www.google.com/search?q=PATA2SATA
2. IDE Hard Drive Cable Adapter - 2.5'' to 3.5''
http://www.google.com/search?q=StarTech+IDE4044
3. 44 Pin Male to Male IDC 2.5" IDE Laptop Gender Changer
http://www.google.com/search?q=+44+Pin+Male+to+Ma
DETAILS
I don't yet have the money to do this project, or you would have already heard the results.
Assemble the three components together (and trim off the unneeded power connection from the 2.5" to 3.5" cable adapter). You now have an assembly that fits within the space normally occupied by the mini's 2.5" HDD.
WARNING: the real unknown is whether or not you can actually then snake an SATA cable from the bridge board and out the back (or side) of the mini. But I think it will work. Assuming it does...
RESULTS
There are more and more SATA drive enclosures hitting the market. This year the trend is multiplexing backplanes, so that you can RAID multiple SATA drives in the enclosure and connect them via one channe back to the computer.
Pick an attractive SATA drive enclosure, plug it in, connect it to the mini, and off you go!
Phil Lawrence
--
feel free to email me if you'd like details about the success or failure of the project, once I get the parts together
Right, good message: do what you can, when you can.
:-)
But one of your later statements is troubling, though perhaps pragmatic:
> I don't need evidence for [foo], because
> I understand the theory. I don't need
> evidence for [bar] because given my
> understanding of [baz], I cannot see
> how [foo] can't be the case.
According to this I should shorten my sermons to the kids on the scientific method to three points:
1. Observe
2. Hypothesize
3. Profit!
Of course I don't have any more time to peer review experiments for/against [foo], [bar], or [baz] than you do. Oh wait I'm not even a "peer", so I guess I'm stuck with "Popular Mechanics" at the news stand.
But while that pragmaticism may be dictated by the direction *my* particular existence has gone, I'd at least like to still genuflect to the full Scientific Method, and hope "popular" mindshare like mine isn't the sum and whole of current science [funding | politics | directions-of-inquiry | conclusion-making].
prl
You have made a succinct, well formed argument.
Your bullet points are all related to each other.
Your post has a nice beginning, middle, and end.
Excellent work! :-)
However, I would suggest that you did not learn your composition (or critical thinking) skills from wikipedia. Rather, you first developed a critical, "boot strap" layer of education that now serves you well.
Computers have nothing to add to this initial layer of education.