|
Wordle 719 2/6
π¨π¨β¬β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
Very lucky guess, and fast too! 
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 719 3/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬β¬π©β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
Looks like it's a day for lots of green only results! 
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 719 4/6*
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬π©β¬π¨β¬
π¨π©π©β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 719 3/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
π©π©π©β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 719 4/6*
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬π©β¬π¨β¬
β¬π©π©β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 719 3/6
π¨β¬π©β¬β¬
β¬π©π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
We have been finally migrating to git for source control. We've got the source for a product in a git repo, and I'm modifying our automated build (a Windows service written in C#/.NET) to use git for this product instead of *cough* SourceSafe *cough*. Stop your snickering, dammit.
The updated builder works fine on my machine. When I installed it on one of our servers, git clone fails with some weird authentication messages. I fiddle around for a while getting nowhere, and then break down and enlist the aid of The Youngster. The Youngster is fairly fresh out of school with only a couple years of experience, but very sharp and knows git well. He set up our GitLab server which works a treat. He gave us a nicely-done PowerPoint on how to set up a machine to run git for us.
It really, really is a good idea to follow all of the instructions so helpfully provided  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Git is unusable. VSS is too. And Subversion of course.
|
|
|
|
|
We've used Visual SourceSafe since 2000. It's worked okay largely because I'm rigorous about backups and regular maintenance.
I don't 'get' git yet. That's going to take time and plenty of day-to-day experience. My impression so far is that the command-line interface grew as a yeast culture. The developers added or changed things as they occurred to them, and there's no rationale or consistency as a result. The GUI operations provided in Visual Studio 2019 (we're not using 2022 yet) are the bare minimum you need while working on your code. I haven't tried them from Visual Studio Code yet, but I expect better support there.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I never used VSS, but back in the 90s the company I was working for considered it as a replacement for CMS (OpenVMS) and found it lacking.
TFS is probably the next best option.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: The GUI operations provided in Visual Studio 2019 (we're not using 2022 yet) are the bare minimum you need while working on your code.
You'll probably get a ton of recommendations for git GUI clients and, as they say, "de gustibus non est disputandum", so I hurry to put my own preference before you get flooded  . Give a try to TortoiseGit[^].
I went through a similar migration path a few years back (well.., maybe 10... no, more like 20 ). I was so fed up with SourceSafe that I moved to CVS and that's how I started to use TortoiseCVS, the precursor of TortoiseGit. After a few years (about 9 or 10) the last dinosaurs in the company realized they were flogging a dead horse and everyone moved to Git. The only history that survived was the one I had in my CVS server. All SourceSafe stuff had to be scrapped. I hope you managed to save more from your history.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't help that a Pull request is what most of us understand to be a code review then a Merge, while a Merge in Git is an operation in its own right - took me a while to get things(having moved from SVN) and GitHub still occasionally catches me out with the "Where do I click to actually see the diffs for this branch?" question.
I had previously used trunk based development with Git which is straightforward - it's just a bit more complex working with branches and the almost inevitable and horrible merge conflicts when working with Pull requests in a team. I also wonder if it might be an age thing with the young'uns being happy with all the shiny complexity.
βThat which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.β
β Christopher Hitchens
modified 8-Jun-23 3:30am.
|
|
|
|
|
Git has a steep learning curve, but it is worth it. I used SourceSafe and SubVersion in the past and think Git is much better.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you and the "youngster" could collaborate on an article for CP ... which i am sure will be popular ?
Β«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindledΒ» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
No snickering re: Subversion. It was so much better than Visual SourceSafe....
|
|
|
|
|
Although businesses use git I do not consider it a valid source control system for any beyond the trivial enterprise.
The problem is that labels can only be applied to the repo.
A repo works fine for open source. For example junit/nunit where there is only one deliverable.
Business enterprises often consist of multiple products even when presented as a single visible product/service. And businesses often end up using 'libraries' which are shared.
Naturally a business could put a library into its own repo but that is often (always?) more work than anyone wants to do because then it requires handling that library as an independent deliverable. Which they don't want to do.
That is not a problem with other source control systems because a label can be applied to part of the source control tree. Thus one can pseudo manage that library without formally managing it. Which is about all one can get most developers to do.
But you can't do that with git.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Although businesses use git I do not consider it a valid source control system for any beyond the trivial enterprise.
Not to defend Git (I hated my experience with it), but I've done some contracting with...let's call it, one of the largest software development companies in the world...and all source code I've worked on had to go to their Git repository. And they pretty much encourage you to work from the command prompt to interact with it, rather than using VS and its feeble attempt at integration. It seemed like a huge step backwards.
And they had developed a rather large/nasty/complex build system, all sitting on top of it. So, they're all in - totally committed.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: they're all in - totally committed
I see what you did there  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I did catch it as I wrote it...then thought, yeah, let's go with that... 
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: And they pretty much encourage you to work from the command prompt to interact with it
Not sure how they would do that.
But at any rate I have never used VS source control. Not for git and not for other source control types either. I find inserting too many tools into one UI does nothing but lead to confusion and potential mistakes. For example something I have seen (not just in VS) is the idea of an 'auto commit' - I consider that just a mistake waiting to happen.
For git I use the command line and TortoiseGit.
dandy72 wrote: one of the largest software development companies in the world.
Can't remember which one, but one of the big ones has their own in house built source control system.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: I do not consider it a valid source control system
Nor do I.
jschell wrote: labels can only be applied to the repo.
That's one of the big shortcomings of nearly all such systems. Subversion has Tags which have the same issue.
TFS has labels, which are critical to a useful system. In CMS, they're called classes.
But TFS still has the shortcoming that files are stored as they are in a file hierarchy, which limits the ability to share files between projects. Subversion at least has soft-copies, but that's still not a great solution.
CMS has other features which lead to a more flexible way to support multiple projects from one library of code files.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Subversion has Tags which have the same issue.
That is not what I remember. You can tag folders and files individually.
I googled just now and what I found seems to suggest I remembered it correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so I got a phishing email so blatant that it must have been done by ChatGPT.
I only get one or two of these a week (my email goes through a mail washer), so I decided to see what it was. Using a "throw away" VM, I went to the site with: Brave, Chrome, Edge, Firefox and Vivaldi browsers.
Only Firefox blocked the site with a big red screen, and a Details button. Site was known to install software, etc.
I need to rethink my default browser.
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Firefox is the only browser I truly trust, I sometimes use Brave only because its ad-block is finer - usually it does not get detected by anti Ad-block countermeasures.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
I get to ignore even more emails: "That was you? I thought it was (AI) spam ..."
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
