Honest question - What DO you merge into shared branches? And, when your local needs to "catch up", don't you have to pull in those shared commits which conflict with your magit-wip commits because they touch the same code, but are different commit hashes?
The magit-wip commits go on a separate branch and ideally I'm never even aware of them. They just disappear eventually. They exist purely in case of a disaster à la the article.
I make "real" commits as I go and use a combination of `git commit --amend` and fixup commits (via git-autofixup) and `rebase --autosquash`. I periodically (daily, at least) fetch upstream and rebase on to my target branch. I find if you keep on top of things you won't end up with some enormous conflict that you can't remember how to resolve.
Feature branches that have been cleaned up and peer-reviewed/CI-tested, at least in the last few places I worked.
Every so often this still means that devs working on a feature will need to rebase back on the latest version of the shared branch, but if your code is reasonably modular and your project management doesn't have people overlapping too much this shouldn't be terribly painful.
My employer has been around 40 nearly 50 years. We still run COBOL for 90% of our business operations. Day-to-day employees work in bluescreens built in RM/COBOL and RM/PANELS.
As recently as the 2010s, we used to emit HTML out of COBOL, but fell short of it directly responding to HTTP requests. Instead, we licensed an RPC layer that sits behind Apache and translates HTTP calls through CGI to a listener on the COBOL side that then invokes COBOL programs. Those programs send back HTML strings through the CGIRPC interface and, well, out comes a webpage in your browser.
We're still using it to serve XML and have turned it into a makeshift web service that helps power a traditional web application.
I think we should we put this title-based distinction to rest.
Whether you call yourself an engineer, developer, programmer, or even a coder is mostly a localized thing, not an evaluation of expertise.
We're confusing everyone when we pretend a title reflects how good we are at the craft, especially titles we already use to refer to ourselves without judgement. At least use script kiddie or something.
I'm inbox zero type of personality and my workplace is incredibly email heavy. Reply-All with far more people than need be present is commonplace and it almost feels taboo to remove someone. What you end up with in a situation like that is inbox overload, synchronous conversations in email and lots of anxiety because now I have 2,000 emails in my "inbox" and just the thought of categorizing them now exhausts me.
For that type of culture, I much prefer slack. The synchronous conversation can happen, you can choose to pay attention or not and, generally, someone will @ you if they really need your input. The one thing I wish slack had was a way to mark comments as "decision points", much like what I heard stride was doing. Hopefully that'll get merged into slack after the buyout.
I've taken up almost refusing to use email (I'm in engineering if it matters). I'll write RFOs and that sort of "report" portion via email, write HR, etc, or communicate outside of the company with it but I'll go days now without even opening my inbox.
I am absolutely up-front about it as well and mention it to my managers and other engs and a lot of them say the same thing.
Either the companies I've worked for over the last 10 years have gone more and more that route or the fact that I don't check email is causing people to not email me.
Worked quite a while for an "Internet Cafe" SAAS company. If you're confused by the quotes, these internet cafe companies basically sell internet time to users and with each minute purchased, you also get an entry into a sweepstakes where the prize is a jackpot. The sweepstakes entries would be redeemed electronically by way of slot machines, video poker, etc. They're basically legalized gambling. I suppose that in and of itself isn't unethical, but we didn't exactly operate by by the book.
In order for this to be legal, the sweepstakes games have to have a defined number of entries as well as a defined number of winners and losers. None of our games did, it was just too prohibitive. We did provide to our customers, by law, our average payouts and our games did adhere to those through averages over time. But there were many occasions where the games didn't pay out jackpots regularly or paid them out too frequently, hurting stores that were using our software. Our recourse was to provide them more "entries" to distribute to sell to their players, which of course cost us nothing.
Business was good for quite a while, but stricter laws and states cracking down really killed profits. I just feel like any type of gambling in unethical, it seems to really pray on people's dopamine addictions. And these internet cafes, in particularly, are largely occupied by retires who, I'd wager, can't really afford to be throwing their money way.
Years later, my Aunt and Uncle became addicted to gambling on those casino boats and have now lost the house my Grandmother left to them when she passed. I don't necessarily believe in karma, but that certainly made me rethink it.
