The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
When I built my first computer in the 70's (z80 based), I didn't have DOS. All I had was a 2K monitor called Zapple. I didn't have an assembler so I learned to program by the numbers. No external storage till I wire wrapped a card to write data to a cassette drive (I actually used a reel-to-reel). The system eventually grew into a CPM system with dual 8 inch floppy drives. Those were fun days.
One of my early jobs was with a company building minicomputers. Every manufacturer had their own OS in those days. I happened to discover a reproducible situation sending the OS into an infinite loop. I went to one of the OS guys, describing it, and he dug out a hardcopy printout of the source code. We did all application programming in high level languages then, but the OS was written in a language at somewhat lower than C - you could maipulate registers directly, and use inline assembler when needed.
After about fifteen minutes of grunting, flipping back and forth bewteen the pages of the OS listing, he nodded a "yes!", grabbed his pen and wrote two numbers into the source code - two 16 bit values in octal format. I asked him what that was. "Oh, that's the patch for it".
He had jotted down not the source code change. Not the assembler instructions that would be generated by the language compiler, but the octal codes for those assembler instructions. Why? Because he would try out the patch by poking directly into the running OS code of his test machine, and then it is very convenient to have the value ready in advance.
Yeah, I suppose he was right. But he didn't need to look up the instruction code anywhere before jotting it down in the listing, so I guess he could have managed with the assembler instruction as well. But why bother with instruction names, when you know the instruction code.
Jira has become a victim of its own success. It started out as a bug management tool and it has bolted "feature" after "feature" on top. Each one has become more and more clunky because the underlying model was never meant to behave in the ways that people want to use it now.
So I have a post build event in my .csproj with the idea that I want to run dotnet publishafter I built the code in Visual Studio. But, because dotnet publish picks up the post build event as well, guess what. Inf***ingite loop.