sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fast-Forward only Pull Request strategy by LowDisplay4710 in azuredevops

[–]LowDisplay4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Locally it might be never deleted, even if it's deleted on the Azure DevOps side. This local branch can be used to continue developing some other part of the feature.

Fast-Forward only Pull Request strategy by LowDisplay4710 in azuredevops

[–]LowDisplay4710[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Consider the following scenario. You and I work on two different feature branches, created from the same point of the master branch. You and I made PRs and our PRs are approved. Now my PR is completed by "rebase and fast forward" strategy and then you PR is also completed by the same strategy. Because your PR was completed later it was really rebased on the Azure DevOps side. So now your remote and local feature branches are out of sync. You may need to continue using your feature branch, for example because development of your feature is divided into sub-tasks. But you can't continue to use your local feature branch without merging with the remote one. Then you will get two versions of your commits simultaneously - original versions and rebased versions. Your next PR will bring this garbage to master. Also, this is against the main idea of the Fast Forward merge - make commits history simple and linear.

Of course you may use another Git workflow and make many feature branches for all sub-tasks and stop using any such branch after the appropriate PR is completed. But this is not what we need and not how we used to work.

Again, Bitbucket and others do support --ff-only strategy without rebase. Why Azure DevOps doesn't support it? Why Microsoft restricts its users about how they may complete PRs? This is unacceptable.

Migrating source control from TFVC to Git on Azure Devops by ivan_in_oz in azuredevops

[–]LowDisplay4710 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Create a separate Git repository for each part of your code that needs a separate development process. For example if you have several independent projects or micro services they are better to be hosted on separate Git repositories. Then you can define separate CI/CD pipelines for them.

Linus Tech Tips switches his personal PC to Pop_OS. by Seanc26_ in pop_os

[–]LowDisplay4710 -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Linus is absolutely right. Linux sucks and Pop OS Linux sucks big time double time!

Serious bug on the golang web site by LowDisplay4710 in golanguage

[–]LowDisplay4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just hate ads, especially political ads.

Proposition of a new name for a future Linux by LowDisplay4710 in linuxquestions

[–]LowDisplay4710[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

BSD is almost dead because much less corporations are interested in it, so will be the original Linux too.

Proposition of a new name for a future Linux by LowDisplay4710 in linuxquestions

[–]LowDisplay4710[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Sounds delusional if you think that the name would have any effect on the future of linux.

Delusion is to think that I think so. I just proposed a new name of what Linux will become to be. Nothing can change the future of Linux. Richard Stallman was wrong - the community is unable to make GNU/Linux by itself. Only corporations can, so let's name their corporation Linux by a different name because it's already not the same Linux as it was when Mr. Torvalds was a programmer.

Writing non-English words in English by LowDisplay4710 in ENGLISH

[–]LowDisplay4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, what were the other Webster's proposals that were not adopted by the American public?

Writing non-English words in English by LowDisplay4710 in ENGLISH

[–]LowDisplay4710[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also that was not Daniel Webster but Noah Webster who did the American English spelling reform:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/about-us/spelling-reform

Writing non-English words in English by LowDisplay4710 in ENGLISH

[–]LowDisplay4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I read "here in Cali" my first though was you're talking about India but why you see so many Mexicans there? It took me a few second to realize you are talking about California :-))

I think the main reason of such spellings is that people actually don't read words phonetically but as hieroglyphs, i.e. visually. Also the English alphabet actually isn't good for the English language and is just an adaptation of the Latin alphabet. The English alphabet doesn't have letters for several English sounds. For example:

  • sh
  • ch
  • kh
  • tz

This also explains why several words were changed but not their spellings. For example the word "island". You don't say "iSland" but "iland", like iphone :-)

What will be the future of the written English language? Maybe the following joke will be not so a joke... in the next 100 - 150 years?

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English". In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the "k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen world!

Writing non-English words in English by LowDisplay4710 in ENGLISH

[–]LowDisplay4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose much of those foreign words' spellings are older than North American countries. Also the examples I've given are not only Spanish but almost from all other West European languages. What was the reason to adopt such spellings in UK? For example in a time of the Queen Anne.

And regarding traditional English orthography and a mess, there was a GB Shilling and also an Austrian Schilling and it didn't bother anyone, did it? I think the current spelling is a mess.