Its all about the regressions, not finding anything novel

Though I wish I was entirely kidding. ~12 years ago or so we did that if one of two parallel development teams had to modify a message of the network protocol to avoid incompatibilities and merge problems.

Mind you, these were SVN merges. I can't even verbalize my feelings about SVN merges but by a mixture of laughing and groaning in pain, like if you stubbed your toe in a painful, but entirely funny way.

Git in turn made branches easier, causing merges to be more prevalent and developers overall learned to merge more, merge more often.

What types of merges are we talking about? Surely it must be where you merge in changes from a main branch to your local branch, which in the case of long-lived branches will be the more common merge. Creating new branches isn't even part of that workflow.

Run ansible and you can screw it all up

or run vi from ssh

https://www.businessinsider.com/github-ceo-developers-embrac...

So many clowns. It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook. Nothing says "this tool is useful" quite like forcing people to use it.

I'd assume that many CEO are driven by the same urge to please the board. And depending on your board, there might be people on it who spend many hours per week on LinkedIn, and see all the success stories around AI, maybe experienced something first hand.

Good news: It's, from my estimate, only a phase. Like when blockchain hit, and everyone wanted to be involved. This time - and that worries me - the ressources involved are more expensive, though. There might be a stronger incentive for people to "get their money back". I haven't thought about the implications yet.

AI is more like the early web. There is definite value that people can see, but no one really knows how to monetize beyond the incredibly obvious 'sell people access to it', so everyone is throwing spaghetti at the wall waiting for it to stick. When someone gets it to stick, there will be a giant amount of money coming at them, but until then there will be a ton of people with sauce all over their faces looking like idiots.

Humans don't behave this way. Yet, we still employ humans. AI is unreliable. We all agree. But that does not make it useless.

CEO1: "This technology is the biggest technical leap in my lifetime!"

CEO2: "Oh yea? Well, this technology is more useful than electricity!"

CEO3: "Oh yea?? This technology is more impactful than the invention of fire!"

VP1: "This technology is going to really help improve productivity!"

VP2: "Come on! This technology is going to let one person do the work of 100!"

VP3: "Surely you jest! Without using this technology, you might as well not even try to earn a living!"

Not necessarily saying this AI is worth switching to yet. It could fizzle out, we'll see. But I'm saying if it's truly worth it's salt, it'll take off because it's good, rather than die despite being good.

Things that this aren't true for are things that are only marginally better. if A is 5% better but B is 95% more popular.. A might yet die because it's not worth switching to. AI is claiming a lot more than 5% gains though

> the rise of AI in software development signals the need for computer science education to be reinvented as well.

> Teaching in a way that evaluates rote syntax or memorization of APIs is becoming obsolete

He thinks computer science is about memorizing syntax and APIs. No wonder he's telling developers to embrace AI or quit their careers if he believes the entire field is that shallow. Not the best person to take advice from.

It's also hilarious how he downplays fundamental flaws of LLMs as something AI zealots, the truly smart people, can overcome by producing so much AI slop that they turn from skeptics into ...drumroll... AI strategists. lol

[1]: https://ashtom.github.io/developers-reinvented

I would give that a 5/10 accuracy at best!

(Disclosure: GitHub employee)

I am not sure about tangled.sh, I might ask them in their discord about this now y'know.

The Linux kernel developers have been using that workflow for a lot of time. Maybe still now.

[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch

[2] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email

[3] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-am

Yes, they do. Git itself is also developed that way.

Btw, you don't need to use format + send-email, send-email calls format-patch under the hood

Why?

What features do you feel like git is missing?

There's a lot of cowboy development going on out there. Why not take this opportunity to talk to your customers for a bit? Make sure you're still building the right things.

At any decently-sized org, the developers are not allowed to talk to customers on their own accord.

If the business is afraid to let you email the customer, you might need to work on your communications skills and go through some intentional demonstration efforts. For example, "Good morning <boss>, here's a draft of what I think we should send <CTO's name @ customer> regarding their feedback on the last build.".

That's literally all it takes to get into the game. Don't ask for permission to write the draft because then your managers will think it's gonna be this big ordeal and they'll definitely say no.

At a B2C, I would not email a customer directly without sign-off. We have marketing teams, research teams, comms, customer support, etc. I would be stepping on so many toes, and risking brand reputation, if I were to interact with our customers.

This has been the case before VCSes existed.

(+WebHooks) (+Issues)