pleroma.debian.social

@dos
So instead, I think of git branches as a set of commits that have a common ancestor with the parent branch, and which can at some point be merged back into the parent branch. That's a much more useful way to think about it, which is supported in all but unusual situations.

When I encounter an edge case in real life, I know about it enough to deal with it. That just doesn't often happen though.
@b0rk

@dos
Respectfully disagree.

The question was, how do you think about git branches.

I know that the technical implementation of a git branch is just a pointer to a single commit which can move around to other commits, with some overridable safeguards so you don't get too surprised when things are done. However, that's not a very useful way to think about it, IMO.
@b0rk

@dos
Of course, that does mean you need to remember that the implementation does not necessarily always link up with the concepts, and that thus the set of commits that are part of your branch can change based on actions outside your branch, but that's fine.
@b0rk

@dos
It does not make sense from a git technology point of view, but it makes perfect sense from a code history point of view, and that really is the only view that matters when talking about branches IMO.

I mean, git is just the implementation.
@b0rk

I am now registered for the upcoming European and Belgian elections.

No, I don't live in Belgium anymore. So what? These things still matter.

@LoganFive
There's a reason why chiropractors make money from mostly 40+ people

@mirabilos
No worries, it happens 😁
@amin @orbitalmartian @rl_dane

@mirabilos
Oh, nvm, you did 😂
@amin @orbitalmartian @rl_dane

@mirabilos
Can you paste an example of how to do that?
@rl_dane @amin @orbitalmartian

@neil
No. Edited tweets would not be abused; it's just a case of Stockholm syndrome.
@liw

@liw
"We recognize that a time-sharing system must operate in a hostile environment. We did not attempt to hide the security aspects of the operating system, thereby playing the customary make-believe game in which weaknesses of the system are not discussed no matter how apparent. Rather we advertised the password algorithm and invited attack in the belief that this approach would minimize future trouble. The approach has been successful."

Ken knew about security by obscurity.

@juliank
Ah, heh, yeah, not then 😂

@juliank
Unless you have a lot of upstream traffic...

@aral
You're not wrong. I'm not saying that Google is a great company, and I'm not saying FOSDEM can't exist without Google. As it stands though, FOSDEM can't exist without cornerstone sponsors, and Google just happens to be the company that wants to be it.

If that means you won't be there, then I respect you for sticking to your principles. Not enough people do that in this world.

But FOSDEM gives its sponsors than do most other sponsored events, is what I wanted to point out

@aral
Why does FOSDEM have cornerstone sponsors? Because not enough people donate to be able to do away with them.

What does Google get for sponsoring? Their name is mentioned on the website, in the closing credits of video recordings, in the opening and closing talks. That's it, nothing more.

@jpmens
No *checked in* luggage. If you're going somewhere for just a few days, some cabin luggage may suffice, and then you don't need to bother with a large suitcase in the hold?

@suihkulokki
So, indeed, they're not being made anymore 😉
@jani @liw

@suihkulokki
Not just LAPACK, it's still very popular in scientific computing overall

@jani
They're not really being made anymore though, are they?
@liw

@Lyude
Except meson is one of those 'the world is online haha if you want to build something X years old good luck finding the servers anymore' pieces of crap.

I'll have Autotools any day, kthxbye.
@nucleus @cb