Hades Blag comments

Comment on Feminism as a condition by Vikarti Anatra

2010-06-21T05:26:37Z

May be _correct_ way will be using dictionary-based morphology analyzer to determine true gender by name? there _are_ free ones like on http://aot.ru

yes,that’s difficult and but this will solve problem.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 4: Rebasing by Edward

2010-03-04T12:07:23Z

Suppose, you had a published branch like this:

A -- B -- C

You have rebased the last two commits somehow (for example, changed the B commit). Then you publish new branch (commits B and C have changed to B’ and C’ respectively):

A -- B' -- C'

Now suppose Linus cloned your repository, and now wants to update it with git pull. Git will see that the common ancestor is A and decide that commits B and C are Linus’s own work not yet present in the repository he is pulling from. This will cause a merge commit to happen, like this:

A -- B' -- C'
  \          \
   B -- C --- X

This is obviously bad, because it now includes two identical changesets (C and C’) and a bad commit, that you have fixed (B). It’s worse even that you can’t blame Linus for that, because he just ran git pull.

So if you ever want to rebase a published branch you need to make sure that everyone who may have pulled it knows that a rebase should be expected.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 4: Rebasing by Niko

2010-03-04T11:33:41Z

Interesting series.

One question arises: what is the problem with rewriting history on a published branch?

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 4: Rebasing by nils

2010-03-04T10:52:08Z

There’s something new to learn everyday. I didn’t know about git pull —rebase yet!

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 3: Refs and Index by Edward

2010-03-03T20:49:26Z

I’ve covered that in the last post: here

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by jospoortvliet

2010-03-02T14:44:03Z

He, clearly ppl are different — I found the fat QA woman and the road crosser for blind one-legged homosexuals very funny, just like the nuclear reactor one. While offending people is a bad thing, I’m not sure if such clearly humorous comments should be read as insults. Let’s not be too politically correct all the time.

Actually, I think if someone takes those as an insult it says far more about that person than it says about the writer — a lack of humor is more of an issue than the ability to make jokes freely :D

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by John Layt

2010-03-02T10:08:28Z

Free speech is a right, and Hades has the right to express his views up to the point where they may be considered incitement. As distasteful as I may find his words, he comes no-where near crossing that boundary so he has the right to let his post stand and have his words speak for themselves.

Posting on Planet KDE is not a right, it is a privilege, one granted on the condition that the posters behave in a way acceptable to the community as is clearly set out by the Planet KDE Guidelines and the KDE Code of Conduct. Hades requested to be syndicated on the planet and so agreed to play by those rules.

This post was a clear breech of the Guidelines and Code. Hades acknowledged that he didn’t intend for the post to go out on the Planet which indicates to me he knew that it would break the rules. At that point I think he had a clear choice to either edit the post to conform, or to remove the post from the Planet. That he choose to do neither I think shows a lack of respect for the community, and perhaps some enjoyment of his brief notoriety.

KDE is a massive and diverse community that survives only because of the mutual respect we have for each other, and by people consciously choosing to get along rather than unnecessarily stepping on each others toes (and that includes dealing politely with people when they break the rules). We’d like to keep it that way.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Lindsay

2010-03-01T22:51:21Z

I have never and will never offend anyone in particular

Bollocks, you quite obviously did. And no one would have cared if it was just your own personal blog but it went out on the general KDE feed — as said earlier the public face of KDE.

As a proponent of free speech

Oh please, the generalised catch phrase for children who don’t know the difference between censorship and being polite. Both you and the parent poster need to grow up, learn the rules of civilised discourse and get over your precious selves.

As said earlier it was an excellent article spoiled by gratuitous and irrelevant abusive references. No one wants to censor you, just see a good and useful article published on the wider community not be spoiled by this.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Edward

2010-03-01T22:19:44Z

Thanks, Ted!

I have never and will never offend anyone in particular, so I exercise my right to ignore any groundless demands to remove or alter my blog posts.

I’m glad that there are still people that understand that.

I haven’t removed comments with ridiculous demands partly for the same reason — freedom of speech. And partly for the amusement of people who understand that I meant my posts to help and entertain people, not to offend them. See, for example, the Bono comments below.

Regarding the “offensiveness” plugin: I think the very non-existence of such a plugin proves that no one gives a duck about so-called offensiveness, except the vocal minority.

Thanks again for your support!

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Ted

2010-03-01T21:26:52Z

As a proponent of free speech, I would be very offended if the text were changed in order to satisfy the interests of those reading or syndicating it. I request that you leave it the way it is, or make changes based on your own personal preferences rather than those of others. It should be the decision of others whether or not to continue reading your blog, and they should not be allowed to censor your freedom of expression; nor should you be relied on to determine what is or is not offensive to others. What if you replace the reference to “homosexuals” with “elephants” and are subsequently prevailed upon by animal rights activists for the same problem? Is “one-legged stool” okay? Or could that be considered an offensive fecal reference? Where does it all end? Must all examples contain spam, so to speak? Is “blind one-legged spam” acceptable? What if the religious are offended by the idea of a layperson “blessing” something?

If other sources want to reference your post without damaging the sensitivities of certain parties, they can presumably redact it to a state which will meet their requirements, or simply attach a disclaimer emphasizing that they are not responsible for the content therein. I notice that your blog is deployed using git; if your repo is publicly-accessible, they could perhaps (depending on your licensing arrangements) clone it and create their own branch, edited explicitly for their intended audience. Of course they might have to read the offensive bits of this post in order to learn how to do that.

I also have to say that I’ve lost a bit of respect for the KDE project based on what I’ve read here: I didn’t expect that its representatives would attempt to pressure someone to change their work simply because they had chosen to carry it. Of course there’s no guarantee that the earlier commenter actually represents KDE.

I don’t want to imply that I’m opposed to people mentioning to Edward that they find his examples offensive; on the contrary, it’s great for him to be so easily made aware of this. However implying that he “should” change his text, or demanding that it be done, because of decisions made by others to read or syndicate his blog seems entirely contrary to the principles of individual freedom upon which free software is based.

That being said, it would be great for people who are offended by such expressions to have an organized way of registering their feelings with the poster in an inobtrusive way; perhaps blogging systems should have an “offensiveness” plugin that would allow various parties to isolate and vote on the offensiveness of particular phrases. That way at least Edward would be able to get an idea of the percentage of audience members he was potentially alienating, rather than wondering if perhaps comments to that effect were from a vocal minority. This information could even be tracked and used to produce more advanced RSS readers and web browsers that present warnings for certain pages based on the reader’s previously-registered instances of offence.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 3: Refs and Index by Fazer

2010-02-17T15:29:34Z

Take a look at this - http://book.git-scm.com/4_interactive_rebasing.html

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Ana

2010-02-14T00:27:51Z

It was a very good article, then I read the “fat QA woman” example, you lost me there. It is highly offensive.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 3: Refs and Index by DeeJay1

2010-01-30T07:18:21Z

Well, I for one would like to know how to get the branch my_fixes with 20 commits and squash them into a branch called for_upstream but with only a few commits instead of those 20, but all of them should be included. Sometimes I commit in really tiny pieces which I wouldn’t like to end up in the release repository…

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 3: Refs and Index by Edward

2010-01-29T16:58:48Z

Thanks! Any ideas what I should cover next are welcome ;)

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 3: Refs and Index by Edward

2010-01-29T16:57:58Z

Thanks, I appreciate that!

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 3: Refs and Index by Andrew Stromme

2010-01-29T14:23:33Z

I’m also a big fan of your articles. I’ve been using git but only in its most basic capacity and I’m itching to do more.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 3: Refs and Index by Jon Nordby

2010-01-29T13:05:09Z

I’m following this series of posts via planetkde and I just want to say: Great work, keep it up!

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Bono

2010-01-26T12:28:45Z

It’s me again, Bono. Now The Edge is getting upset too, and threatens to throw his guitar. You really don’t want that. Please do something ASAP, and also get my shades back.

Cheers, Bono (from U2!)

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 2: Branches by Edward

2010-01-25T21:00:58Z

Okay, I’ll try to clarify that in next post, thanks.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 2: Branches by Marcos Dione

2010-01-25T20:55:32Z

The first article in this series was great. in this one you got me lots when you started to explain detached heads. I think it stems from the point were you talk about checkouts while not explaining what they are. Maybe a couple more of graphs would explain better?

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Disgusted

2010-01-25T20:05:41Z

If it’s no problem, why is it still there? And furthermore, it’s offensive anyways, so whether you intended it to go to Planet KDE should be irrelevant.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Mike Arthur

2010-01-25T13:29:06Z

Another +1 to getting rid of the offensive references. If you have time to comment you have time to edit the above picture and text. Please do so ASAP.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by openid

2010-01-25T12:32:07Z

No, playground is different. The playground is not personal. There you can find plugins and some libraries and applications which are totally unstable. Some of them are unmaintained, some of them are under active development by some people and will move to review, extragear or KDE in a few months. But I like local commits. Sometimes I perform changes breaking compilation. Of course I do not want to commit them to trunk, but I want to save my work.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by John Layt

2010-01-25T11:27:29Z

Actually, I love the interim commit model. I’m in the middle of refactoring a core library using svn. Committing it to trunk after each interim step is unthinkable as it would be broken for some scenarios and probably either break all the clients or require them to be changed each time. Not acceptable. Instead I like to complete one round of refactoring to change one thing, then commit that change so I have a checkpoint to fall back to if the next round doesn’t work so well. The svn solution is a branch in playground then try to merge back into trunk. The git solution is local commits, then commit the branch to trunk when it doesn’t break everything else, and decide if you want to keep the full interim commit history at that stage.

The big danger working this way is that no-one else sees what you are working on, which is where Gitorious will come in to play, if you push your work branches there on a regular basis and keep your module informed of what you are doing, I don’t see how that is different to doing something in playground.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Edward

2010-01-25T07:54:33Z

You don’t need local commits because you should just commit to the centralized server whenever you want to commit.

What if I want to commit in an airplane?

I normally don’t have uncommitted changes in my SVN or CVS working copies: before I leave the computer, I commit.

If you commit perfect code every time and don’t even flinch, then I sincerely envy you.

workflow […] isn’t necessarily one which should be encouraged; IMHO, local commits are actually a very bad thing

[…]

it’s a bad thing to rewrite History anyway

Are those opinions based on experience in a project that uses Git? Somehow, most projects tend to keep only good and tested commits in the History. Many proprietary development models also include some form of code review by peers. Developers are (mostly) merely humans.

What about new developers? To gain repository write access one obviously should prove himself worthy by committing code, but it is impossible because he doesn’t have access. What should he do? Send patches, that obviously do not conform neither to “release early, release often”, nor to “keep commits atomic”?

I didn’t say “pick that specific workflow”, I said “see how many wonderful workflows are there”.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Edward

2010-01-25T07:18:29Z

for KDE, i don’t think having “no central repository” would be a good thing at all. having more peer-to-peer communication can be great, but given our workflows and how we work with others outside of KDE, having a diffuse cloud of repositories would be really difficult for us.

Yes, I agree here. That is better suited to projects that have a solitary dictator, such as Linux, or proprietary projects.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Kevin Kofler

2010-01-25T04:46:21Z

PS: And I don’t commit only when I leave the computer, I tend to commit after every small change, just like git users do, except it’s a commit to the central server (and of course commits don’t get “squashed”, SVN/CVS don’t support it and IMHO it’s a bad thing to rewrite History anyway).

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Kevin Kofler

2010-01-25T04:42:34Z

The problem is, you and other git advocates keep telling us “you don’t like git because you aren’t using it right, you should change your workflow”, but what if we don’t want to change the workflow and have good reasons for it? A big project like KDE will always have a centralized server and I don’t see why it’s a mistake to push your changes to the central server as soon as you’re done. You don’t need local commits because you should just commit to the centralized server whenever you want to commit. You should never be ashamed of your work. “Release early, release often” also applies to SCM commits. I normally don’t have uncommitted changes in my SVN or CVS working copies: before I leave the computer, I commit. The big problem is that by switching the central repositories to git, you’re forcing your workflow (which isn’t necessarily one which should be encouraged; IMHO, local commits are actually a very bad thing, cooperative development means you should publish your work even when it’s not finished so anyone can use the parts that are already there and/or help finishing the work) onto everyone.

Comment on Git Is Your Friend not a Foe Vol. 1: Distributed by Aaron Seigo

2010-01-25T02:32:21Z

nice article :)

for KDE, i don’t think having “no central repository” would be a good thing at all. having more peer-to-peer communication can be great, but given our workflows and how we work with others outside of KDE, having a diffuse cloud of repositories would be really difficult for us.

this is based on talking with our downstream packagers and many application developers about this exact issue.

Comment on Feminism as a condition by Edward

2010-01-24T23:23:45Z

Women and children are first to evacuate from a sinking ship. If you were a man, would you be offended by that?

I’m not.