|
shrughes posted:We just have What about 2013?!?!
|
# ? Jun 13, 2013 17:24 |
|
|
# ? May 17, 2024 14:36 |
|
But...why?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2013 19:29 |
|
We have that, *and* the keep comments for every commit on the file. Makes going to files from the 1990s a hoot.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2013 19:32 |
|
Not So Fast posted:We have that, *and* the keep comments for every commit on the file. Holy poo poo I hate that, leaning on the page down button for two minutes every time i open the file.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2013 19:54 |
|
Ours is like 11 lines, and we have a perl script that forces you to update it to the current year on commit. No the script doesn't do it for you.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2013 20:29 |
|
zergstain posted:Ours is like 11 lines, and we have a perl script that forces you to update it to the current year on commit. No the script doesn't do it for you. Take a vacation after the new year, let someone else do it for most of the files.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 00:31 |
|
zergstain posted:Ours is like 11 lines, and we have a perl script that forces you to update it to the current year on commit. No the script doesn't do it for you. That is the dumbest loving script.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 01:15 |
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:You should have copyright notices on code for internal use, Why? None of our stuff has anything.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 01:16 |
|
none of our stuff has anything either
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 01:39 |
|
Slanderer posted:That is the dumbest loving script. To be honest, the script does a hell of a lot more. Main purpose is to enforce style and extract strings for the message catalogs. We always make it a range from when it was created to when it was last touched. Simple mistakes it fixes for you, but I think there's an issue so they don't enable the copyright fixing option. This is a Co-op term so I'm gone after August anyway.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 02:36 |
|
Pardot posted:Why? None of our stuff has anything. Similarly. I was under the impression that copyright was automatic under the berne convention, but I do tend to put organization/owner information in the root level of a package/module.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 04:13 |
|
Adding a notice means that if someone infringes, they can't claim it was "innocent infringement" and you can collect larger damages (i.e. statutory instead of actual damages).
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 04:58 |
|
I've been picked up for a bunch of freelance web development contracts, so I'm having a ball earning actual money instead of sitting on welfare. Already come up against one gem of a responsive site, built in the last 6 months. code:
There's also a couple of other gems in there like forking the entire CSS/JS directory twice for one off pages, so they don't cascade very well. Payin' dem bills though.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 07:00 |
|
code:
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 21:01 |
|
shrughes posted:
code:
Pardot posted:Why? None of our stuff has anything. tef posted:I was under the impression that copyright was automatic under the berne convention, Or alternatively, if you license your code to some other entity who (lawfully) integrates it into their internal code. Then they later decide to opensource it, the Copyright makes it clear who owns that piece of code. Honestly, keeping track of Copyright and licenses is important stuff. Revision control does help to maintain a trail of authorship, but only if repositories are preserved and code doesn't get packaged outside of them. It's also not really that hard.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2013 22:02 |
|
The Gripper posted:Well you can also wrap if statements across lines if you really want: Doesn't every part of the if statement get checked when you do this? I try to stay away from those kinds of if statements And yeah, as other people have pointed out there's not really any such thing as "production" code in academia, with a few exceptions
|
# ? Jun 16, 2013 00:59 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Doesn't every part of the if statement get checked when you do this? I try to stay away from those kinds of if statements
|
# ? Jun 16, 2013 01:07 |
QuarkJets posted:Doesn't every part of the if statement get checked when you do this? I try to stay away from those kinds of if statements No, most languages have "short-circuiting" logical operators. They evaluate left to right, innermost outwards, until the entire expression can be proven true or false. This means it evaluates as little as possible to find the answer. In the sample you quoted, it's a chain of comparisons "or"-ed together. This entire expression becomes true if just one single of the sub-expressions are true. So they get evaluated from left to right, but as soon as one of them evaluates "true", it takes the "true" branch of the if statement, it doesn't need to evaluate the rest since their result is irrelevant to the truth value of the entire expression. (Short-circuiting "or" with two operands: Evaluate first operand, if true the result is true, otherwise evaluate the second operand and use that as the result. Short-circuiting: Evaluate the first operand, if false the result is false, otherwise evaluate the second operand and use that as the result.)
|
|
# ? Jun 16, 2013 01:10 |
|
Some language implementations will even reorder statements to perform the cheapest checks first, when they can prove there aren't any side effects.
|
# ? Jun 16, 2013 02:31 |
|
How do they know what checks will be cheapest?
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 10:33 |
|
For example, comparing two integers is usually less costly than comparing two strings.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 10:45 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Doesn't every part of the if statement get checked when you do this? I try to stay away from those kinds of if statements Never program a computer.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 11:15 |
|
He's in academia that basically says everything.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 12:47 |
|
toiletbrush posted:How do they know what checks will be cheapest? SQL decides this based on statistics and presence/type of indexes on the relevant fields. As for "real" programming languages, I'm not sure. Even with functional ones where the absence of side effects is guaranteed, they wouldn't know much about the cost anyway.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 13:13 |
|
mobby_6kl posted:SQL decides this based on statistics and presence/type of indexes on the relevant fields. As for "real" programming languages, I'm not sure. Even with functional ones where the absence of side effects is guaranteed, they wouldn't know much about the cost anyway. I imagine this is a kind of analysis a JITer can do at runtime.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 13:59 |
|
quote:From: Sathyanathan, Justin (emphasis mine)
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 15:57 |
|
Lysidas posted:src/.../src/.../src/.../VisitorRepositoryJpaImpl.java
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 16:04 |
|
Lysidas posted:(emphasis mine) I am actually really surprised by how cordial the other list members are being when responding to this person; I expected them to just rip the guy to shreds but they're actually making some reasonable effort to help him and not look like absolute dicks. Good on them. But they're still finding very clever ways to make fun of the dude. Case in point, from down-thread: quote:> > For Below issue , O/S is Windows7. Good lord, did I hate when my clients did this when I was in consulting.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 16:17 |
|
Agreed. I'm amazed by how patient many of the list members are. I also like the wording and tone of this response: quote:Please next time you ask consider doing two things:
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 16:25 |
|
FYI for others wondering, this is on a mailing-list. An archive of it is here although I don't know if its complete. http://marc.info/?l=git&m=137147574728306&w=2
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 16:46 |
|
Strong Sauce posted:FYI for others wondering, this is on a mailing-list. An archive of it is here although I don't know if its complete. Here's a link to the whole thread. Sorry for not including it when I started quoting other messages. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/228065
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 16:49 |
|
zokie posted:Is this some kind of record? You've never worked with lawyers, have you? This is nothing.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 16:51 |
|
Sun Certified Enterprise Architect for Java EE platform
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 17:18 |
|
Lets not forget to recognize the other potential horror there, 'git add *'.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 17:47 |
|
Assuming you have an up-to-date .gitignore, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 18:51 |
|
code:
e: gently caress broke tables
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 19:29 |
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Assuming you have an up-to-date .gitignore, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I might go so far as to say that if you can't do git add *, you should fix that. Having a clean working directory makes it far harder to do things like forget to commit a new file.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 19:59 |
|
Plorkyeran posted:I might go so far as to say that if you can't do git add *, you should fix that. Having a clean working directory makes it far harder to do things like forget to commit a new file. git add * won't add anything in . directories though I use git add .
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 20:38 |
|
I usually do git add $(git ls-files -m) then follow it up with git adds for any new files. Now that I've seen everyone's posts I guess I'll clean up the gitignore file.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 20:58 |
|
|
# ? May 17, 2024 14:36 |
|
Dren posted:I usually do git add $(git ls-files -m) then follow it up with git adds for any new files. Now that I've seen everyone's posts I guess I'll clean up the gitignore file. Generally, I do this with git add -u . which only adds already-tracked, modified files (well, I also use -p).
|
# ? Jun 17, 2013 21:11 |