Then, they reread it and check it for typos and grammatical errors, put it down, check it for context and completion, and repeat. They may do this again and again until they arrive at a product they feel good about. 

Publish completed designs to Zeplin's platform while you iterate on designs in your design tool.

Turbo is a continuation of the ideas from the previous Turbolinks framework, and the heart of that past approach lives on as Turbo Drive.

how was your code review experience with this merge request? Please tell us how we can continue to iterate and improve: Leave a 👍 or a 👎 on this comment to describe your experience.

PRs will introduce various mechanisms step by step. Some of these have issues already. A possible breakdown could be: Annotation collection using instance values (links also does this) Defining annotations to which multiple keywords contribute (this is new, see Need more details of annotation collection #530) Defining subschema and keyword processing results to include annotations Processing sequence for keywords that dynamically rely on the results of static keywords The actual definition of unevaluatedProperties An example of unevaluatedProperties

It's now possible to move terminals between windows by detaching via Terminal: Detach Session in one window and attaching to another with Terminal: Attach to Session. In the future, this should help enable cross-window drag and drop!

It's much easier to iterate on new versions by deploying npm packages than updates to the compiler toolchain. Therefore, it might be best if the actual implementation still lives in the react package.

Poor iterative development involves flailing around randomly searching for a solution-and mistaking this oscillation for iteration.

One of the inherent dangers of any form of iterative development is confusing iteration with oscillation.

But maybe this PR should still be merged until he finds time for that?

Rollup builds atop Browserify and Webpack's lineage to make it possible to easily consume those packages, while looking to the future of JS modules.

The great thing about having our function in Promise form is that we don't actually need to "make it an async/await version" if we don't want to. When we call/execute the function, we can simply use the async/await keyword

Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted, the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words, enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too closely to the solution you have in mind.

An RFC can provide tremendous value without the design described in it being accepted.

Coming up with a design is very iterative and only one part of the process.

Transparency is an additional safeguard whenthe circumstances of the research do not allow for aspecific consent. A lack of purpose specification may be offset by information on the development ofthe purpose being provided regularly by controllers as the research project progresses so that, overtime, the consent will be as specific as possible. When doing so, the data subject has at least a basicunderstanding of the state of play, allowing him/her to assess whether or not to use, for example, theright to withdraw consent

TypeScript’s type inference means that you don’t have to annotate your code until you want more safety.

Adopting TypeScript is not a binary choice, you can start by annotating existing JavaScript with JSDoc, then switch a few files to be checked by TypeScript and over time prepare your codebase to convert completely.

GitLab's Iteration value means we often make small improvements to the product. We use this to get feedback on what features are important to people. It is not a bug when GitLab is missing functionality.

I think we have it to encourage our iteration 👣 value, and to create small MRs

When you are building incremental changes, you simply follow-up from the last commit's behavior and improve it — IMO if you can state what are the improvements in the subject that should be just fine.

These two are in my opinion the most problematic — the basically go against each other. Typically, I try to work in increments over a feature and commit when I reach whatever techinical milestone I want to "checkpoint" at. It can also be out of the need to expose some idea or architecture and push it.

By embracing the autonomy that comes with a role at GitLab, you're able to ship more, and do so more quickly. Success is tied to one's ability to ship quickly, iterate slowly, rely on themselves as a fact-finding resource, and to not lean on someone else to do something you're capable of accomplishing.

We will use the Open Annotation specs as the basis for a more formal data model standard.

But also just store the entire payload in a JSON field. This probably won’t scale throughout the life of an app, but I don’t see the harm in it while you’re feeling things out.

Each commit is composed so you can read them from start to finish and see what was done to get to the next iteration of the application.

This cycle is repeated until everyone involved is satisfied that the Scenarios accurately describe what is wanted in a testable manner.

A given piece of material may require six or more drafts over a period of several years, and some drafts are never developed into completed work.

We do the smallest thing possible and get it out as quickly as possible.

Iteration can be uncomfortable, even painful. If you're doing iteration correctly, it should be.

People that join GitLab all say they already practice this iteration. But this is the value that they have the hardest time adopting. People are trained that if you don't deliver a perfect or polished thing you get dinged for it. If you do just one piece of something you have to come back to it. Doing the whole thing seems more efficient, even though it isn't.