31 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. We will also run into some issues when we consider adding new channels to Service Desk like an API. We should have a streamlined process of rendering notes (messages) etc. Having a base64 image (or even attachment) in mail but not in the API might be inconsistent and also adds a lot of code that needs to be maintained.
  2. Sep 2022
  3. Aug 2022
    1. We already have a very wide configuration API. The further we expand it the more unwieldy it becomes for users. At this point we generally require new features to be implemented first as extension gems, and then to see support, before considering including them in core.
  4. May 2022
    1. we routinely choose not to add or expand features we think are a bad idea, or simply that aren't in popular demand, not because we're "saving the dummies' asses" but because adding new features creates a maintenance burden upon ourselves which cannot easily be undone. Once a version of RSpec supports something its there until a next major version which could be a long time away, we have several features already that we don't recommend extensive use of (expect_any_instance_of for example, we'd recommend not using it but we know there is popular demand for it so we maintain despite the extra burden it causes) so we're understandably not keen to increase that number.
  5. Jan 2022
    1. Yes, precisely because I've been involved in maintaining codebases built without real full stack frameworks is why I say what I said.The problem we have in this industry, is that somebody reads these blog posts, and the next day at work they ditch the "legacy rails" and starts rewriting the monolith in sveltekit/nextjs/whatever because that's what he/she has been told is the modern way to do full stack.No need to say those engineers will quit 1 year later after they realize the mess they've created with their lightweight and simple modern framework.I've seen this too many times already.It is not about gatekeeping. It is about engineers being humble and assume it is very likely that their code is very unlikely to be better tested, documented, cohesive and maintained than what you're given in the real full stack frameworks.Of course you can build anything even in assembler if you want. The question is if that's the most useful thing to do with your company's money.
  6. Mar 2021
  7. Jan 2021
    1. Frankly, if the Ubuntu Desktop team “switch” from making a deb of Chromium to making a snap, I doubt they’d switch back. It’s a tremendous amount of work for developer(s) to maintain numerous debs across all supported releases. Maintaining a single snap is just practically and financially more sensible.
    2. This example of the chromium really shows that unless snaps or other similar format was used, applications would have to be sometime very heavily patched to work on older versions of systems to the point that it generates so much work that it would not be worth do to it otherwise, or at least not worth when the snap option exists and doesn’t require that much more work.
  8. Dec 2020
    1. Less developer maintenance burden: The existing (Kuma) platform is complex and hard to maintain. Adding new features is very difficult. The update will vastly simplify the platform code — we estimate that we can remove a significant chunk of the existing codebase, meaning easier maintenance and contributions.
  9. Oct 2020
    1. Looking at a few isolated examples doesn’t really represent the enormity of the maintenance problem when you modify objects that you shouldn’t. To understand this point of view, it’s helpful to take a step back and look at moral philosophy (aka ethics).
  10. Sep 2020
    1. Svelte will not offer a generic way to support style customizing via contextual class overrides (as we'd do it in plain HTML). Instead we'll invent something new that is entirely different. If a child component is provided and does not anticipate some contextual usage scenario (style wise) you'd need to copy it or hack around that via :global hacks.
    2. Explicit interfaces are preferable, even if it places greater demand on library authors to design both their components and their style interfaces with these things in mind.
    1. You can help ensure your RFC is reviewed in a timely manner by putting in the time to think through the various details discussed in the template. It doesn't scale to push the thinking onto a small number of core contributors.
  11. Jul 2020
  12. Jun 2020
    1. Disqus:

      As for publishing this as an actual gem on rubygems.org...I have enough open source I'm involved in all ready (or too much, as my wife would probably say) and I'm not really interested in maintaining another gem. Are you interested in taking over this code and releasing it as a gem and being maintainer?

  13. May 2020
    1. Despite our best efforts to deal with all of those issues, over the course of time we fall behind. When you look at an issue it's sometimes unclear whether or not we intent to provide the functionality you propose, whether or not we fix the bug, whether or not the issue is a duplicate of another one. In order to restore a reasonable level of clarity we annually perform a House Keeping Iteration in which we go through all open issues. We categorize, label, fix, and close issues. This results in a wave of notification which is hard to deal with (our apologies) but in the end there is better understanding of what will happen to your ideas.
    1. AppCache was standardized in the Offline Web applications section of the HTML specification. The standard is formally referred to as application caches. New Web applications should be built around Service Workers. Existing applications that use AppCache should migrate to Service Workers. AppCache access was removed from insecure origins in M70. This intent addresses AppCache usage in secure origins.

      First and foremost, AppCache is a deprecated standard with serious architectural concerns. Second, Chrome's AppCache implementation is a security and stability liability. AppCache is documented as deprecated and under removal in MDN and in the WHATWG standard, and marked as obsolete in W3C’s HTML 5.1. It is incompatible with CORS, making it unfriendly for usage with CDNs. Overall, AppCache was changed in over 400 Chromium CLs in 2018-2019. It has imposed a tax on all of Chrome’s significant architectural efforts: Mojofication, Onion Souping, and the Network Service. The security benefits of the removal are covered under Security Risks.

    1. Most traditional (monolithic) CMS systems are “coupled”, meaning that the content management application (CMA) and the content delivery application (CDA) come together in a single application, making back-end user tools, content editing and taxonomy, website design, and templates inseparable. Coupled systems are useful for blogs and basic websites as everything can be managed in one place. But this means that the CMS code is tightly connected to any custom code and templates, which means developers have to spend more time on installations, customizations, upgrades, hotfixes, etc. and they cannot easily move their code to another CMS.
  14. Apr 2020
  15. Mar 2020
    1. Yes, it’s been deprecated. Why? Because too few people were using it to make it worth the time, money, and energy to maintain. In truth, although I sometimes disagree with the operator changes, I happen to agree with this one. Maintaining ALL of the synonyms takes real time and costs us real money. Supporting this operator also increases the complexity of the code base. By dropping support for it we can free up a bunch of resources that can be used for other, more globally powerful changes.
  16. Dec 2019
  17. Aug 2019
    1. I second that and recommend the typings be moved to DefinitelyTyped. It’s an unreasonable burden for a library maintainer to manage them when they aren’t using TypeScript.