|
SupSuper posted:Did someone say use cases? Somebody please upload that last one to imgur and post it here; it is too good to miss. I would do it but my work proxy keeps uploads from working.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2013 16:48 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:48 |
|
the littlest prince posted:Somebody please upload that last one to imgur and post it here; it is too good to miss. I would do it but my work proxy keeps uploads from working. If the user gets all the way to View Travel Alerts, he turns into a king.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2013 17:02 |
|
Thank god for the little bumps in the lines. Can't imagine how you'd trace them if they just went point to point.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2013 17:06 |
|
Vasja posted:
First thing that came to mind when seeing that.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2013 18:29 |
|
What's up with the faint (mirrored?) diagrams in the background of those use case images?
|
# ? Nov 6, 2013 18:47 |
|
Ornedan posted:What's up with the faint (mirrored?) diagrams in the background of those use case images? Scan of a double-sided printout.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2013 18:51 |
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:First thing that came to mind when seeing that. There's an iOS remake of FF6 now?
|
# ? Nov 6, 2013 18:55 |
|
From some C++ code I got from a guy at the lab today:code:
|
# ? Nov 6, 2013 23:44 |
|
He'll get the last laugh when C++23 allows passing parameters to destructors!
|
# ? Nov 6, 2013 23:52 |
|
code:
What's getItem(30)? No idea. But I do know that bSumRequired is actually checking if the "summary" is required for a time entry. Why shorten "Summary" to a word that already exists that has nothing to do with it?
|
# ? Nov 7, 2013 15:04 |
Obviously it's getting the 30th input field on the form. So uh...don't add/remove any before that.
|
|
# ? Nov 7, 2013 18:25 |
|
"Remote to Local caster function. This stuff is complex, don't concern yourself with casting logic." is not acceptable documentation for a function
|
# ? Nov 8, 2013 19:40 |
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:"Remote to Local caster function. This stuff is complex, don't concern yourself with casting logic." is not acceptable documentation for a function You're developing teleportation spells?!
|
# ? Nov 8, 2013 20:24 |
|
KaneTW posted:You're developing teleportation spells?! Arcanum sequel confirmed
|
# ? Nov 8, 2013 20:31 |
|
We've all seen PHP advocates defend PHP before. But have you seen them in the comments section of MLP fanart?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2013 01:58 |
|
Opinion Haver posted:We've all seen PHP advocates defend PHP before. But have you seen them in the comments section of MLP fanart? Never before have I seen a link I was so scared to click.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2013 02:14 |
|
Opinion Haver posted:We've all seen PHP advocates defend PHP before. But have you seen them in the comments section of MLP fanart? The other comments to that piece are good, too. Like the poster who talked about programming Cobalt and Pearl.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2013 02:21 |
|
Just moved to California and had to redo my auto insurance policy, and then print out a document to send to the DMV. So I logged on to their website and went to the online documents area. In Safari, the document downloaded as a 3-page PDF. No prob. But since I needed to print it off at work, I logged on there where I primarily use Chrome. The document downloaded as... an HTML page with three <img> tags, one for each page, with poorly aliased text, encoded as a data: URI. How does that even happen?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2013 03:30 |
|
Flobbster posted:Just moved to California and had to redo my auto insurance policy, and then print out a document to send to the DMV. So I logged on to their website and went to the online documents area. In Safari, the document downloaded as a 3-page PDF. No prob. Not Safari, Firefox or MSIE? Must be netscape or something from beyond the sands of time, better go to compatibility mode. PDFs may not yet be invented.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2013 04:57 |
|
Except the data URL protocol is new.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2013 05:46 |
|
pseudorandom name posted:Except the data URL protocol is new. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2397 "Proposed August 1998"
|
# ? Nov 10, 2013 05:51 |
|
When was it actually implemented?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2013 07:38 |
|
All browsers support it at the moment except IE, with partial support. http://caniuse.com/#feat=datauri
|
# ? Nov 10, 2013 07:53 |
|
Opinion Haver posted:We've all seen PHP advocates defend PHP before. But have you seen them in the comments section of MLP fanart? "PHP is way more secure than Java or C" "Uh, I'm not sure that's true" "Well unless you can provide me with hundreds of specific sources proving your point then your argument is indefensible" Outstanding.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2013 23:58 |
|
A customer is using "strings.php" to define all of the product sections on their website, which is comprised of this amazing set of arrays:PHP code:
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 00:41 |
|
What I love most is the "Do NOT change" comments. I suspect that it was laid out this way because someone was getting sick of having to make code changes for the business side making minor text changes, so he decided to make this file to let them do it instead. Except that the business folks decided that they didn't need those i's or j's and just chucked them.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 00:58 |
|
Someone blew up all the Jenkins plugins repositories because they had forced push permissions without realizing it.quote:AW - *PLEASE READ* Re: strange pushes on GitHub
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 01:57 |
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Someone blew up all the Jenkins plugins repositories because they had forced push permissions without realizing it. Holy gently caress. Not updating any plugins this week.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 02:16 |
|
quote:Can we prevent this to happen again ?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 03:02 |
|
Git is pretty hard, but one of the stupid things is for you to just do a 'git push --force' without specifying the remote location/repo. It is annoying to me that he is blaming GitHub and others for giving him access when he was doing something as dangerous as that. Why would you even do that? If you want to overwrite history in one of your repos, you should be doing a git push specifically to that repo.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 03:25 |
|
Strong Sauce posted:Git is pretty hard, but one of the stupid things is for you to just do a 'git push --force' without specifying the remote location/repo. It is annoying to me that he is blaming GitHub and others for giving him access when he was doing something as dangerous as that. Why would you even do that? If you want to overwrite history in one of your repos, you should be doing a git push specifically to that repo. I think if the default for a "dangerous" command like that is to just assume the user wants to overwrite history of every single repo they have access to, it's perfectly fair to blame git for having a horrible interface. Additionally, it's also perfectly fair to say "hey maybe giving people who don't even work on this project the ability to horribly mess up your repository is a bad idea".
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 04:21 |
|
Didn't git recently change to have push only affect one branch by default?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 04:27 |
|
OddObserver posted:Didn't git recently change to have push only affect one branch by default? Yup. http://blog.nicoschuele.com/?p=217
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 04:46 |
|
Jabor posted:I think if the default for a "dangerous" command like that is to just assume the user wants to overwrite history of every single repo they have access to, it's perfectly fair to blame git for having a horrible interface.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 05:04 |
|
I like to imagine that this is the same Luca as the one on Masterchef.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 06:49 |
|
Why does this guy have permission to push to 180 repositories he's not involved with, anyway?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 09:22 |
|
Jabor posted:I think if the default for a "dangerous" command like that is to just assume the user wants to overwrite history of every single repo they have access to, it's perfectly fair to blame git for having a horrible interface. `git push --force` is never a good idea. It is only dangerous if you add the --force flag, in which case you should be well aware of the dangers of using that flag. If he wanted to be on the safe side he should have just done a git merge/git push of his changes. You should never run that git command unless you're absolutely sure that is what you want to do. I am really curious of the following though: 1. He did a `git push --force` with repos that were months old. That is pretty irresponsible. Why would you even do a `git push --force` without updating all your repos? I assume in this case he just wanted to force push to one repo, but then why would you not specify the repo in your command as a preventative measure, especially when you are using the --force flag? 2. He has been on Github for almost 4 years and just _assumed_ Github has something to prevent force pushes? According to someone in that thread it may be in the Enterprise edition? Regardless it seems like later on in the thread he admits that the way they use GitHub probably isn't normal so, again I don't know why he just assumed GitHub would protect him from this. Which again begs the question of why he didn't specify a repo instead of doing this. This guy has over 20 years of experience and has been on GitHub ~4 years and he used git push --force? I mean I agree that the people who just added him to all the repos are partially to blame as well and I am sure (maybe) that they will now actually restrict access to repos but he still did something stupid. I mean people make mistakes but it seems like he is trying to deflect a lot of the blame for something that should never happen. Maybe your fingers accidentally hit the Enter key when you were rewriting the command while changing repos or something. Just fess up to that instead of doing this. Edit: They have 562 members in the organization and apparently 1K+ repos. Uhm, yeah maybe the admins of the org should have done a better job with access controls. Strong Sauce fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Nov 12, 2013 |
# ? Nov 12, 2013 09:51 |
|
Strong Sauce posted:`git push --force` is never a good idea. On github we keep doing that thing where we send a pull request, someone reviews+comments on the commits and suggests changes, and then we amend our commits and push -f them to the pull-requested branch until the pull request gets accepted. I don't think that's that weird a workflow?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 10:05 |
|
For those of us not englightened in the ways of git, what exactly is a forced push?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 10:40 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:48 |
|
It's basically a push that doesn't just add commits to the top of the pushed-to branch in the remote repository, but can arbitrarily rewrite the branch to point to a completely different commit. In the case of this story, the push reset 150 repositories' branches to point to a month-old commit, basically just rewinding them and effectively dropping all the commits since. The commits were left floating around in git's object space and could easily be reached by their hash ids, it's just that they weren't reachable by looking at the commit at the top of the branch and its ancestors, so they wouldn't show up in that branch's history. It's fairly easy to fix but I guess it's a pain to do it 150 times.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2013 10:49 |