Frequently use both `github.com` and self-hosted Gitlab. IMHO, it's just... different.
Self-hosted Gitlab periodically blocks access for auto-upgrades.
Github.com upgrades are usually invisible.
Github.com is periodically hit with the broad/systemic cloud-outage.
Self-hosted Gitlab is more decentralized infra, so you don't have the systemic outages.
With self-hosted Gitlab, you likely to have to deal with rude bots on your own.
Github.com has an ops team that deals with the rude bots.
This seems virtually impossible to enforce. It's trivial to restructure hiring a developer to write software, as licensing software from a foreign development firm, or any number of other workarounds.
This is not just a hypothetical, this is something that already happens when companies are looking to optimize their tax burden. Corporate structuring and income shifting are big businesses in their own right and serve to find the minimum amount of changes required to be able to legally reclassify income.
In the case of this bill specifically, in the unlikely even it passes, a simple corporate inversion will solve this problem. Instead of the US company owning foreign subsidiaries, the structure is inverted: the parent company becomes foreign, which will own a domestic US corporation. When the multinational wants to hire or retain offshore talent, it simply pays out from the parent company. Again these aren't hypotheticals, these are real tax avoidance strategies that are already in place and are well-trodden paths.
You can come up with an infinite amount of regulation to try to halt this (this problem is also called tax base erosion) but it ends up doing more harm than good - eventually you end up with a tax code and regulatory environment so complex that that alone disincentivizes new investment.
The goal is not just to retain existing capital and talent by forcing them to be locked in - it's to compete for the next dollar, the next startup, the next factory - new investment will follow the path of least resistance, while older companies eventually close up shop due to one reason or another.
If your worldview is one of "We already have the best capital and talent, so we don't need to bother to compete to acquire new capital and talent", the world you live in will stagnate and wither with respect to societies that will bend over backwards for this.
I enjoy this metaphor of the cow and the papier-mâché.
Presumably, there is a farmer who raised the cow, then purchased the papier-mâché, then scrounged for a palette of paints, and meticulously assembled everything in a field -- all for the purpose of entertaining distant onlookers.
That is software engineering. In Gettier's story, we're not the passive observers. We're the tricksters who thought papier-mâché was a good idea.
Yes. But look at the bottom. There's an image with the PR review screen. There's one change:
* Normally, the big green button says "Merge pull request"
* Now, the big green button says "Merge when ready"
In a large project with lots of activity, a stampede of people pressing "Merge" at the same time will cause trouble. "Merge when ready" is supposed to solve this.
It seems to mean:
> "GH, please merge this, but take it slow. Re-run the tests a few extra times to be sure."
Here's in-depth details on how it works. [1] Basically, each PR gets put in its own branch with the main branch + all the PRs ahead of it merged in. After tests pass, they are merged in order.
Bors is also very similar to the Zuul CI system used for OpenStack. It has the equivalent of a merge queue (with additional support for cross repositories dependencies): https://zuul-ci.org/docs/zuul/latest/gating.html You can then have pull requests from different repositories all serialized in the same queue ensuring you don't break tests from any of the repositories participating.
Each PR on the queue is tested with whatever commits it would have were it merged to the target branch in queue order. So if the target branch already has commit A and commits B and C are in queue, commit D will be tested on its own temporary branch with commits A B C and D. If the tests for C fail, C is removed from the queue, and D is retested with just commits A B and D (because that's what would be on the target branch by the time it merges).
* The general idea of mixing together filesystems+folders to achieve re-use/sharing/caching.
* The "Dockerfile" approach to this - with its linear sequence of build-steps that map to a linear set of overlays (where each overlay depends on its predecessor).
The "Dockerfile" approach is pretty brilliant in a few ways. It's very learnable. You don't need to understand much in order to get some value. It's compatible many different distribution systems (apt-get, yum, npm, et al).
But although it's _compatible_ with many, I wouldn't say it's _particularly good_ for any one. Think of each distribution-system -- they all have a native cache mechanism and distribution infrastructure. For all of them, Dockerization makes the cache-efficacy worse. For decent caching, you have to apply some adhoc adaptations/compromises. (Your image-distribution infra also winds up as a duplicate of the underlying pkg-distribution infra.)
Here's an alternative that should do a better job of re-use/sharing/caching. It integrates the image-builder with the package-manager:
Of course, it trades-away the genericness of a "Dockerfile', and it no doubt required a lot of work to write. But if you compare it to the default behavior or to adhoc adaptations, this one should provide better cache-efficacy.
(All this is from POV of someone doing continuous-integration. If you're a downstream user who fetches 1-4 published image every year, then you're just downloading a big blob -- and the caching-layering stuff is kind of irrelevant.)
The whinging hits everyone. Look at any HN story involving the Bay Area, and you'll see a dozen subthreads about how it's a post-apocalyptic hellscape. (But it's home, you know.)
Speaking as an elitist left-wing hippie-business-geek-bro-demon in the Bay Area...
Ourselves, it seems. A Javascript framework is like a jet, and we are the human payload. You can stay in the jet, zooming over the constantly changing landscape. But if you get tired of this zooming around (or if you get scared of hitting a mountain), then you can activate the ejection seat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_seat). Of course, now you're a mile high without a plane, but the ejection-seat comes with a parachute, so the descent will be pleasant (or, at least, non-fatal - which is a style of pleasantness).
Erm, wait, I think you were soliciting a more literal answer. :)
"create-react-app" is the Javascript framework/jet. If you want to go for the ride, then you declare a single-dependency on "create-react-app", and they will decide when/what/how to upgrade components in the framework. If you don't want to ride along with "create-react-app"s framework, then you "eject". They'll give you a little bundle (the concrete list of dependencies) and send you off on your way.
The SPL data structures are widely considered a mistake. They're awkwardly designed, cannot be type-hinted, and often perform worse than pure-PHP alternatives.
Self-hosted Gitlab periodically blocks access for auto-upgrades. Github.com upgrades are usually invisible.
Github.com is periodically hit with the broad/systemic cloud-outage. Self-hosted Gitlab is more decentralized infra, so you don't have the systemic outages.
With self-hosted Gitlab, you likely to have to deal with rude bots on your own. Github.com has an ops team that deals with the rude bots.
I'm sure the list goes on. (shrug)