• Anh Kagi@jlai.lu
    3·
    42 minutes ago

    Even without considering the typos, the diagram is incomprehensible with all these arrows pointing in every direction and textboxes placed randomly. I had to look at the original to understand it.

  • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
    17·
    4 hours ago

    To be honest, what I’m most mad about isn’t the typoes, it’s that someone generated this image and figured, yeah alright, that will clear things up.

    On some level you want to believe that even if someone does not come up with a proper concept for a visualization, that they still check what the AI shat out, so that it’s at the very least not conceptually wrong and not confusing.

    This image isn’t just shitty, it’s actively worse than having no visualization. They could’ve generated that, chuckled, and not used it. Just how do you blunder your perception check so badly that you decide to include it anyways?

    • Gyroplast@pawb.socialEnglish
      3·
      1 hour ago

      There is the decades-old adage:

      Incorrect documentation is worse than no documentation.

      That’s why I never comment my code. The documentation is in the .h files. The “h” means “help”.

    • mcv@lemmy.zip
      2·
      53 minutes ago

      That is exactly the problem. I understand people using AI to make things. I don’t understand blindly publishing AI slop without verifying it’s correct.

      Everybody using genAI has to understand that AI will often be wrong, and frequently ridiculous, and that it’s up to you to ensure that what you deliver is correct.

      And because nobody likes to review other people’s work (most people are terrible and sloppy reviewers), it’s better to put yourself in the center: have AI propose ideas or review the result, but you make the thing. That’s how you ensure everything passes through your hands.

  • Gonzako@lemmy.world
    1·
    2 hours ago

    I just made master become what gets pushed to the actual website so I do have to take it into consideration

  • balsoft@lemmy.ml
    29·
    10 hours ago

    I really hope “morging continvoucly” becomes a meme and is used to mock microsoft forever

  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
    16·
    10 hours ago

    Well, that explains a lot about the product quality. Their entire development workflow is a complete fucking mess.

    • Long-lived feature branches.
    • Creating merge commits to main just for the sole purpose of tagging them as releases while also maintaining separate release branches.
    • Force-pushing tags to incorporate post-release hotfixes instead of releasing minor patch updates.
    • Taking bugfixes from releases and merging them back into the development branch (have they not heard of cherry-pick?)
    • Always using merges even when a rebase would be easier to follow and keep the history more straightforward.
    • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
      5·
      5 hours ago

      Wow, it stole it badly enough that it might not count as copyright infringement in court, but it also stole it badly enough that it isn’t useful at all.

    • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
      11·
      13 hours ago

      holy fuck, it’s basically the time I followed a tutorial for generating “a witch” for AI art, and ended up with a horribly mangled MTG card

    • pizza_the_hutt@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      8·
      13 hours ago

      It’s still not a bad system if you have to support and provide bugfixes for multiple versions of software. However, if you only support the latest version and only create bug fixes and features based on the latest release or main branch, then git-flow is way overkill.

          • draycs@lemmy.world
            2·
            3 hours ago

            What is large scale to you? We have 100-200 developers doing something fairly close to trunk based development. Including cherry picking from trunk when possible (not always practical for sufficiently old release branches)

          • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            3·
            4 hours ago

            I pushed my team to use trunk based development. We did cherry-picks from trunk to release branches for a couple years with no issues. Since then, I’ve written a GitHub action that automates the cherry-picks based on tickets in the commit messages.

            But even before the automation, it drastically improved our dev processes.

            We weren’t on Git Flow exactly, but it was a bastardized version of it.

            Having used TBD successfully for like 5-6 years now. I can’t imagine using Git Flow.

  • 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    28·
    13 hours ago

    git Morge perfec t flow for put code in to re\lease! inside very Bronch and Featue code morge continvoucly put code in Git Morge. no problems ever in gitt morge because good Flow and Barnch for code morge conflict of big code releas. Agit Morge yes a place for a code put code in git morge can trust Tirm for giveing good morge to code. friend morge

  • RustyNova@lemmy.world
    81·
    11 hours ago

    I love git flow but the GitHub tooling is bad. It forces you into GitHubflow which is very confusing for those building from source

  • jcorvera@quokk.auEnglish
    9·
    12 hours ago

    And Microsoft stole it from a different developer, who posted it back in 2011… and then ran it through Copilot without even checking it thoroughly before adding it to training documentation.