|
It works both ways 
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Buying on Amazon and the like is less frustrating
Have you ever order something a got the book of Japanese love poetry?
I ask as I ordered a book PIC controllers and got a book of Japanese love poetry, a friend ordered a book on three phase controllers got a book of Japanese love poetry. My cousin ordered a bouncy castle got a book of Japanese love poetry.
|
|
|
|
|
My experiences differ from yours. When buying from established sellers (not fleabay), I have had very few problems. Most of the problems have been postal delays, for which I cannot blame the sellers.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I do a lot of business with Amazon, but you have to watch their prices. Generally when you buy directly from Amazon the prices are good, but beware if you buy through Amazon from a third party dealer!
Last week my daughter bought a floor standing lamp from Ikea for $7. Out of curiosity I checked the Amazon price for the identical item from a third party dealer. It was $23!  And that was with a prime account, where shipping is supposed to be free. You now pay $100 annually for prime membership.
Some of the dealers selling through Amazon are rip-off artists.
Another issue is expiry dates on some products. I once bought a bottle of vitamins through Amazon, and on arrival I noticed the expiry date was two weeks out! Some merchants seem to dump old stock through Amazon. Fortunately Amazon's excellent return policy meant I could send it back at their cost, for a full refund.
Watch those third party dealers that sell through Amazon!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Amazon Prime, I remember that. it used to cost £25 annually then they went and added a Video Streaming service and the like and I wasn't interested anymore the price went up. £25 is a hard cover book. It went up and I wasn't interested anymore, I mean I think someone looked at the price and went 'umm aren't we loosing money on this?'
|
|
|
|
|
Third party sellers annoy the crap out of me as well. Some are alright, but the ones that annoy me are the ones that under-price their items, and over-price their shipping, just to get top listing on item searches.
I have a couple items on my wishlist right now that can't be found in stores anymore (collectibles) that are priced moderately above retail. Fantastic! you think, when you see the price... Then you click the item and find out shipping is 10, 15, 20, even 30 dollars... Sorry, but it doesn't cost $30 to ship a five ounce item...
People like this should be banned from Amazon altogether (better if the pricing system were fixed, but hey...)
|
|
|
|
|
In the U.S. there has been a huge backlash against Walmart, but not so much Amazon. Walmart built gigantic super stores, that have everything from clothes to groceries to garden, to electronics, just outside the suburbs that shutdown many local merchants.
To me shopping online is acceptable; socially, economically, and environmentally.
I occasionally buy from Amazon, but refuse to drive around looking for the best bargain, waste of gas, waste of time. I tend to buy clothes and hygiene products online, but look for the best deal. Amazon doesn't always have the best deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Plus you can do it in your under-ware and not get arrested
|
|
|
|
|
You've clearly never visited a Walmart in the US... 
|
|
|
|
|
I have, whats worse Walmart took over a ASDA supermarkets this side o' the pond and took out the internal roof tiles (that deaden sound) now you can here a three year old screaming that 'I want Frosties' all over the store! 
|
|
|
|
|
That's intentional. They want you to remember that the wife sent you out for cereal and milk! 
|
|
|
|
|
Online shopping isn't killing off small shops; they were mostly killed of by greedy, price-fixing megastores and large supermarkets.
If the megastores and large supermarkets are now suffering, then I say fair play.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, for that particular item, I can visit any of my local supermarkets for the 3% stuff or I can go to a hydroponics shop for the 50% stuff. $3.something for 250ml at the marketsuper and about $13 for 500ml of 50% at the hydro shop. I can't buy the stuff online, since no-one will ship the strong stuff. (and yes, that is 3% and 50% - not 3vol and 50vol)
Some of my favourite music has been bought second-hand complete with cover-art and a real disc at local-shops. Same with movies/docos.
That said - I bought an adjustable Grobet jeweller's saw-frame at a local shop about 15 years ago for AUD $50. Having misplaced it a number of years ago I recently sought to replace it. I ended-up buying one from Amazon for about $23 delivered to my door.
Like any kind of shopping, the best place for purchase seems to depend on the item and the time its wanted. 100gm, 0.01gm resolution digital scales for AUD $80 locally or about $10 from flea-bay - simply no comparison!
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All,
We are in the process of reviewing our source control and the way we integrate.
Currently we are using SVN but not using it's merging feature etc. All the basic ones like getting latest, commit, put etc.
But our team has now increased and quite often two developers end up over writing each others code. Our environment looks like -
Test server - where development happens and sit till the functionality is approved
Live server - Once functionality is approved and tested, it goes to live (production) server.
So my questions are:
1. What do you recommend - svn or GIT or svn is completely fine as long as we use all the features.
2. Should we really be developing in local and then pushing to test server and then production or what do you recommend?
3. Any other tips to automate this process?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
cp-andy wrote: quite often two developers end up over writing each others code.
Quit your job... this doesn't make any sense.
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
HobbyProggy wrote:
Quit your job... this doesn't make any sense.
Why it doesn't make sense? You should be smart enough to understand the text. If you aren't that smart then not sure what exactly are you doing here  ..
|
|
|
|
|
How uncoordinated does someone have to work that it is possible to overwrite someone else's code when using a tool like SVN?
Never heard of LOCKS or the possibility to communicate with each other to prevent such things?
That is what makes no sense, but since you seem to be clever i guess you already knew that right?
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
HobbyProggy wrote: Never heard of LOCKS
Yes, I very much know about locks but you can only lock it at SVN level not server level. Right? If tom, dick and harry lock few files then I can still push the file to test server and to production after making changes to it? So it doesn't help.
HobbyProggy wrote: possibility to communicate with each other
That's what we are doing now which takes up lot of time. So need a better solution.
Hope you got my point smarty pants?
|
|
|
|
|
You may be using SVN, but you aren't using it correctly. This isn't a software problem.
Here's a super quick, overly simple view of what should be going on:
Daily work
=================
1) Check out code
2) Modify Code
3) Developer level / Unit testing
4) Check in code (handle your merge issues)
Build
=================
1) Checkout code
2) Tag or version the checked out code
3) Build the code
4) Test the code
A) If test successful, push to production
B) If test not successful, dump the build.
Notice that there is no modification in the build process?
|
|
|
|
|
cp-andy wrote: push the file to test server and to production after making changes to it
Without going through a build/test/QA phase? That's nuts! This is a process problem, not a source control problem!
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
cp-andy wrote: But our team has now increased and quite often two developers end up over writing each others code.
That sounds more like a merge management issue.
Sometimes you have to merge changes manually if more than one person is working on the same library or the same source code file.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: merge management issue.
Yes it is sort of that. Here is the scenario that explains it better - ]
Dev A gets latest code from the sub version control
Dev A is happy that he got the latest files and start working on file A, B, C, D
Dev A pushes the code to test server and wait for approval for couple of days.
Now Dev B needs to work on files B, C. A very quick 2 minute job.
He does the same, gets latest code from the sub version control
Deb B is now happy that he has got the latest files and start editing it.
But he is not aware that there is another newer version waiting to be approved on a test server
Dev B finishes the edit very quickly and push the code to test server. and TEST SITE BREAKS!! Or it might just work if changes to the other files are not dependent.
Now after a weeks time, dev A gets an approval to make the functionality live. He goes back to the test server and all the changes are now lost. He pulls his hair and cry Why Why Why ME? If he is lucky, he may have a local copy which he can push to the test server again but then it’s time for Dev B to cry as his changes will be lost.
May be we need to make a good use of branches. And also pushing code to test/production is all manual at the minute. Which is basically an overhead.
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds more like a workflow issue that svn (nor git or mercurial, for that matter) can completely. If anyone can deploy to test at any time and potentially blow away someone else's changes, you're going to run into issues. What would help would be for developers to do something like create a git branch fro whatever feature they're working on. That way, at least they'll still have a local copy of whatever they were working on in case someone else overwrites it on the test server. Git branches are cheap. Even with svn, though, there's not much excuse for losing changes because you pushed them to a remote server and then got rid of your local copy.
Perhaps begin with a policy that developers can never, ever, push something straight to the test or production server.
Set up a CI server like TeamCity that will run your build and run all tests whenever someone checks code in. Set up TeamCity to automatically deploy to the test server once a week (or whatever time interval works best for your team). Make sure all developers know when this happens, so they'll be able to commit/push their changes in time. Create a tag or branch in source control representing the build that has been pushed to the test server.
Once the build on the test server has been running well enough on the test server and you're ready to deploy it to production, grab the correct version from source control (easy since you have a branch or tag for it) and deploy it to production.
|
|
|
|
|
The simple answer here, I think, is to check in your code when you change it, and not after it has been through the test server process. If it fails testing, you need to fix it, check changes in then submit to test server - so everyone is getting the latest version of the source most of the time, rather than having long delays between getting code and updating.
though I'm not sure what you mean by 'test server' in your context - are you pushing code to the test server before checking it back in to SVN?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, we get latest from the svn and then dev A works on it and pushes to test server directly and not to SVN. Once bugs are sorted and is a stable version, then dev pushes it to SVN and to production server.
I am going through all the suggestions now and see what can work for us.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
