|
So, as always, bad-guys were caught because they screwed up.
i.e. normal police work got the job done.
As always.
All the infringements of civil liberties, imposed over the last few years, did not do a damned thing for the case.
As always.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: bad-guys were caught because they screwed up.
Mark_Wallace wrote: normal police work That's a knock on the police. I'm sure they have more value than that.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
My brother was on the force for years, and he told me that the only honest way to look at is was that they mostly caught criminals when the criminals screwed up.
That sounds like an honest thing for a copper to say -- after all, criminals who are smart enough to think of everything and never make mistakes get away with it.
So his life as a copper wasn't one of being all clever, like Holmes or any other fictional character*; it was all about legwork, and going through details looking for mistakes the criminals made.
* And it abso-f**king-lutely wasn't about using espionage-level spying cr@p on everyone, or abusing every man, woman, and child as if they were terrorists.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: or abusing every man, woman, and child as if they were terrorists. So, not that fun then.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, they only get to do the good stuff in TV shows and movies.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Good to know!
|
|
|
|
|
So, keep your license upto date. Lesson learned.
|
|
|
|
|
They would not have that problem with one-time-pads
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya know, when I saw that article a week or two ago, I wondered how long it would take someone here to bring it up.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I only saw it on the newsletter but was not going to pass up the opportunity to bring it up again
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Fuchsia, really? My spider senses tell me there will be no end of twisting to that name.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
JSOP use the colour in one of his many articles, we have been twitting him for years about it.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, in many languages "ch" is pronounced "k". Conference talks about Fuchsia should be fun.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I think he likes the acronym as it's close to his
Android Open Source Project (AOSP),
|
|
|
|
|
Current Story:
Where I am working now we are using GIT, like many company before.
But, and this is a first for me, everyone is working on their own branch and, every now and then people make a pull request to develop to be approved by the lead developer.
Of course one should make sure the pull request has no conflict. But since 2 weeks of work from an other developer can drop anytime... despite me merging my branch from develop every morning I am having lots of painful merge conflicts... every few days....
What I wonder:
is it common practice to have every developer working on its own branch instead of the whole team working on a common branch?
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: is it common practice to have every developer working on its own branch instead of the whole team working on a common branch? In my experience, that's extremely uncommon.
I see it as being wasteful, both in the effort required to maintain it and system resources.
Working copies isolate your scratch work from the core code; branches are for when a new or different version is needed.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
That is what we do here in a team of 5, most of the time. Everything goes into it's own feature branch, which is merged back into the develop branch later. And yes, we do get merge conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
Jacquers wrote: Everything goes into it's own feature branch That's a lot more common (and useful) than the "branch per user" thing.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's usually a feature per developer, so it amounts to the same in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, but "private ownership" of the branch doesn't exist -- if the dev moves on to a different feature/product, he'll work on the branch for that, and someone else will take over the branch he'd been working on.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
And if two or more devs work on a feature they will work on the same branch.
|
|
|
|
|
In Git, branches are a part of your everyday development process.
Git branches are effectively a pointer to a snapshot of your changes. When you want to add a new feature or fix a bug—no matter how big or how small—you spawn a new branch to encapsulate your changes.
This makes it harder for unstable code to get merged into the main code base, and it gives you the chance to clean up your future's history before merging it into the main branch.
-BitBucket.
But for smaller changes, that we are very confident of what we are doing, I don't think branching out & merging back is needed?
Full Reset
modified 10-Jan-19 3:15am.
|
|
|
|
|
Rule 1: you never really know what you are doing, so we will come to your office and kill you if you edit directly on the production branch
Rule 2: if you think you know what you are doing, please refer to Rule 1.
|
|
|
|
|
rofl . Okay. Point noted.
Full Reset
|
|
|
|