Programming

I've got to say, seeing this:

https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/network

instead of something like this:

https://fork.dev/blog/posts/collapsible-graph/

or this:

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:4800/format:webp/0*60NIVdYj2f5vETt2.png

feels pretty damn legacy to me.

I got caught by this one today. I use the search feature all the time, and I don't know why I didn't notice that until today. I found the thing I was looking for, then wanted to go back to issues backlog for that repo, I clicked "Issues", that just took me to a filtered view of my search term within issues. Deleting my search term didn't help. I was clicking around for at least a minute before I realised there's actually no way back to the main repo from that page.

It would certainly help if the GitHub code search wasn't utter garbage.

There’s a reason they do that: Files can get big

Oh, boy. Wouldn't it be great if servers had a way to discover the size of the files on their storage without having to read them?

adding various code highlighting and interactivity costs performance

Somebody, quick, there's work to be done on language theory so that we learn how to do those things with a cost just proportional to the file size!

(No way! Who is that Chomsky guy you keep telling me about?)

When she says it's starting to feel like legacy software, I think she means parts of it seem to be falling into disrepair. Some things that once worked consistently and easily, like using the browser's built-in search, no longer do.

What does the author mean with “legacy”? I thought that meant “abandoned”.

Legacy to me does not mean abandoned, but the previous version that is still needed. It does not tell you if its "supported". Abandoned would be a software no longer in "supported" to me. But that does not say if its still needed today. So legacy and abandoned are similar, but not the same, only sometimes the same. Legacy software or hardware can be popular in usage too. In example old graphics cards like GTX 1070 are legacy and use legacy drivers. They are somewhat popular still. The official drivers from Nvidia still support this older graphics card, so they are not abandoned, only legacy.

This is what my definition of these words. I don't think Github itself is legacy nor abandoned. I personally am just a very simple Git user and use Github through the git command and for some tasks through the website of Github. It's fine for me and I don't care if someone calls it legacy or abandoned. It's not.

Worse than Sourceforge? Savannah?

Tell me what you found out!?

Don't be xkcd Denver coder, tell us how you fixed this shit right now

Quit with this Firefox "enshittification" bs. It isn't true. Be better.

https://www.spacebar.news/mozilla-firefox-privacy-preserving-attribution/

I truly can’t. I have pet peeves with GitHub but overall it’s good and the UI is clear enough. I have to use gitlab for a few projects and it’s so damn confusing, with so many little annoying things I just can’t stand it.

Gitlab feels also a bit weird to me, though.

The git part is perfectly fine, but at my job we're trying to get our cloud tool landscape to work with gitlab CI and it's really a struggle.

Something as simple as packaging the same artifact in two different ways or running tests in docker images before pushing them is really hard. Gitlab seems to insist on having a single commit as its entire context and communication between stages (especially on different runners) is almost laughably limited.

Jenkins on the other hand has at least the option to have a shared workspace. Yes, this has its downsides, but at least I have the option. Gitlab forces you to use outside tools in very involved ways or follow exactly their own, highly opinionated approach.

GitLab just doesn't compare in my view:

To begin with, you have three different major versions to work with:

• Self-Hosted open source
• SAAS open source
• Enterprise SAAS

Each of which have different features available and limitations, but all sharing the same documentation- A recipe for confusion if ever I saw one. Some of what's documented only applies to you the enterprise SAAS as used by GitLab themselves and not available to customers.

Whilst theoretically, it should be possible to have a gitlab pipeline equivalent to GitHub actions, invariably these seem to metastasize In production to use includes making them tens or hundreds of thousands of lines long. Yes, I'm speaking from production experience across multiple organisations. Things that you would think were obvious and straightforward, especially coming from GitHub actions, seen difficult or impossible, example:

I wanted to set up a GitHub action for a little Golang app: on push to any branch run tests and make a release build available, retaining artefacts for a week. On merging to main, make a release build available with artefacts retained indefinitely. Took me a couple of hours when I'd never done this before but all more or less as one would expect. I tried to do the equivalent in gitlab free SAAS and I gave up after a day and a half- testing and building was okay but it seems that you're expected to use a third party artefact store. Yes, you could make the case that this is outside of remit, although given that the major competitor or alternative supports this, that seems a strange position. In any case though, you would expect it to be clearly documented, it isn't or at least wasn't 6 months ago.

Self host with backups set up?

Try Codeberg!

There is always sourcehut