I would say it maybe makes sense to do that for team based projects so your TODOs don't impact other people finding new warnings in their code.

For solo projects I don't think that makes any sense.

I use Google Slides - you get better control over the layout.

I think Python is superficially easier since you don't have to declare variables, printing is a little easier, etc. And in some ways it is actually easier, e.g. arbitrary precision integers, no undefined, less implicit type coercion.

But I agree JavaScript is generally a better choice. And it is actually more popular than Python so...

Wow are there still SystemD naysayers? Mind boggling.

Headache isn't a word I'd associate with Rust. More with Ruby or Python (at least until uv mostly saved us).

It definitely is... But it's possible to be the most rigorous study and also not really prove anything. Proving this sort of stuff is ridiculously hard and expensive. We don't have proofs for even the most obvious things in programming, like that comments and good variable naming help comprehension. Sometimes studies even find the opposite.

Ah yeah I agree. Misread your comment.

Huge speed-ups for the will-it-scale tlb_flush2_threads test - presumably not very representative!

I wonder how much effect it has on real world workloads.

No it doesn't, that's bullshit.

The only benefit Octave has over MATLAB is that it's free. Which is something I guess, but in practice it is MATLAB without the benefits of MATLAB.

It's plotting functionality sucks as much as anything else, it has fairly good toolkit support but not remotely like MATLAB, and it still has the mediocre MATLAB language. Worse - with custom incompatible extensions!

Yeah I get what you're saying. Gitlab can pretty much do that too, you just need a branch & MR for each commit, and then you tell it to merge each branch into the previous one. It automatically rebases them when their dependency merges.

Definitely more tedious to set up than just pushing one branch though. Maybe I should make a tool for that... Does Gerrit test each patch in CI sequentially or just all of them together?

But in any case that wasn't really the problem I was talking about. What I'm saying is that whether or not you should squash a branch depends on what that branch is. Neither "always squash" not "never squash" are right. It depends. And developers seem to have a real problem with knowing when a change is important enough to warrant a commit.

Though I suppose if people have to actually review each commit they would get a lot more push-back to "fix fix fix" type commits so maybe you are right.

Does Gerrit require each individual commit to be approved or can you just approve the whole branch/changeset?

What are you talking about?