My [own] projects don't get popular, so having issues enabled doesn't cause issues. :P
Great analysis / report. At times a bit repetitive, but that could be useful for people skimming or jumping or quoting as well.
Despite 91% of CTOs citing technical debt as their biggest challenge, it doesn’t make the top five priorities in any major CIO survey from 2022–2024.
Sad. Tragic.
I'm lucky to be in a good, small company with a good, reasonable customer, where I naturally had and grew into having the freedom and autonomy to decide on things. The customer sets priorities, but I set mine as well, and tackle what's appropriate or reasonable/acceptable. Both the customer and I have the same goals after all, and we both know it and collaborate.
Of course, that doesn't help me as a user when I use other software.
Reading made me think of the recent EU digital regulations. Requiring due diligence, security practices, and transparency. It's certainly a necessary and good step in the right direction to break away from the endless chase away from quality, diligence, and intransparency.
While I agree with the later (or middle?) points, maybe for different reasons or maybe I would have reasoned differently, I mostly disagree with the earlier points.
Any really important comments get lost in the noise
What kind of comments are they using?
When I leave comments on GitLab they're threads that get resolved explicitly. GitHub also uses resolvable threads. The assignee/creator goes through them one by one, and marks them as resolved when they feel they're done with them. Nothing gets lost like that.
I also make use of '⚠' to mark significant/blocking comments and bullet points. Other labels, like or similar to conventional comment prefixes, like "thought:" or "note:", can indicate other priorities and significance of comments.
Instead of leaving twenty comments, I’d suggest leaving a single comment explaining the stylistic change you’d like to make, and asking the engineer you’re reviewing to make the correct line-level changes themselves.
I kinda agree, but I often leave the comment on the/a code in question, and often add a code change suggestion to visualize/indicate what I mean. This comment may stand in and refer to all other occurrences of this kind of thing. It doesn't have to apply exclusively on those lines.
Otherwise you’re putting your colleagues in an awkward position. They can either accept all your comments to avoid conflict, adding needless time and setting you up as the de facto gatekeeper for all changes to the codebase, or they can push back and argue on each trivial point, which will take even more time. Code review is not the time for you to impose your personal taste on a colleague.
I make sure that my team has a common understanding of, and the comments adding sufficient context/pretext to make it clear, that code change suggestions and "I would have [because]" are usually or in general can be freely rejected, unless specified otherwise. Often, comments include information of how important or not changes are to me, in comments themselves, and/or comments summarizing a review iteration (with a set of comments). The comments can also serve as a spark for discussion about solutions and approaches, common goals or eventual goals of the changed code that may be targeted after the code changes currently under review.
Review with a “will this work” filter, not with a “is this exactly how I would have done it” filter
I wouldn't want to do it like that, specifically. It's a question of weighing risks and medium and long term maintainability vs delivery, work, changeset, and review complexity and delay. Rather than "will this work", I ask my self, "is this good enough [within context]".
Leave a small number of well-thought-out comments, instead of dashing off line comments as you go and ending up with a hundred of them
Maybe I've had too many juniors to get into this mindset. But I've definitely had numerous times where I did many comments on reviews, even again on successive iterations. Besides reviewing the code technically, the review can also serve as a form of communication, assimilation, and teaching (project an codebase at hand, work style, and other things).
It's good to talk about concerns, issues, and frustrations, as well as upsides of doing so and working like that. Retrospectives and personal talks or discussions can help with that. Apart from other discussion, planing, and support meetings, the review is the interface between people and a great way to communicate.
That goes directly against the open, transparent development model of the Linux Kernel.
When you're developing in the open, everything becomes "public relations".
A bit too broad to give a specific answer from my side.
Overall, I prefer web based over apps, because I can CSS hack and if necessary JS hack them.
Web also means it doesn't litter my PC or mobile phone or tablet. And that it can't fetch more data than it needs or I want it to have access to.
Bad software is bad software, no matter if it's installed or on the web.
Very interesting. A trove of experience and practical knowledge.
They were able to anticipate most of the loss scenarios in advance because they saw that logical arguments were not prevailing; when that happens, ""there's only one explanation and that's an alternative motive"". His ""number one recommendation"" is to ensure, even before the project gets started, that it has the right champion and backing inside the agency or organization; that is the real determiner for whether a project will succeed or fail.
Not very surprising, but still tragic and sad.
I consider python a scripting language too.
Your broad claim and what is actually being banned on instances makes it seem you want to include questionable if not destructive opinions.
Can you be more concrete? What are you missing, and where?
What banned content that couldn't find a home on another instance do you want to see?
Do you think opinions should be shareable in any form, or only in respectful form?
Is your suggestion that people should? Isn't Rust the more realistic, effective solution because it forces people to do better? Evidently, "correct memory safety in C/C++" didn't work out.
Study, get a bachelors degree
That's not 6 months though
Yes, the GPL allows you to make modifications. The GPL still applies.
The cloned repository still holds the history and deleted files. The files that are still there retain the GPL. If you make additions to the GPL sources, the GPL applies to those too. (Copyleft license.)
You can check the summary of GPL on ChooseALicense to understand your rights and conditions a bit better.
Does Deno fit your needs? It is also a drop-in replacement to a large degree, but is somewhat focused on improving the related tooling environment.
I'm not very involved in the (non-browser) JS ecosystem, but it's my tool of choice.