pre-commit hooks are fundamentally broken

commits a los repositorios

it is a really good idea to check the status before doing an add .

I think the problem with after_destroy is that it is triggered before the database commits. This means the change may not yet be seen by other processes querying the database; it also means the change could be rolled back, and never actually commited. Since shrine deletes the attachment in this hook, that would mean it might delete the attachment prematurely, or even delete the attachment when the record never ends up destroyed in the database at all (in case of rollback), which would be bad. For shrine's logic to work as expected here, it really does need to be triggered only after the DB commit in which the model destroy is committed.

It is handy to manually generate the diagram from times to times using the previously created command: npm run db:diagram:generate. Though, getting the diagram to update itself on its own automatically without a developer interaction would ensure that it the diagram is never obsolete. There are several ways of doing this.You could use a pre-commit git hook or even better simply configure your CI/CD pipeline(s) to run the npm script whenever something gets merged into the main branch 🙂

Good commit hygiene is considered a best practice. GitLab should encourage and enable these kinds of best practices. This feature currently creates a problem and requires workarounds that remove information, or significant manual work.

The goal of this tutorial is to describe Python development ecosystem.

We also get a hook to alter commit messages so that they include a common suffix. We can then use this to set up a server-side hook that refuses changes that don’t have this in their messages.

The commit message should always have some explanation, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Git/CommitMessages.

Better community building: At the moment, MDN content edits are published instantly, and then reverted if they are not suitable. This is really bad for community relations. With a PR model, we can review edits and provide feedback, actually having conversations with contributors, building relationships with them, and helping them learn.

There are a few intentional behavioral differences between Dart Sass and Ruby Sass. These are generally places where Ruby Sass has an undesired behavior, and it's substantially easier to implement the correct behavior than it would be to implement compatible behavior. These should all have tracking bugs against Ruby Sass to update the reference behavior.

just saying that if you're going to try to go with a markup approach, at least go all the way, instead of the frankenstein that is JSX

Move svelte into dependencies, as it was accidentally stuck in peerDependencies

If you can, use AMP like any other JavaScript library to build your site and forget about the canonical linking. Using AMP to build a whole website dramatically reduces your maintenance burden.

Automate Python workflow using pre-commits: black and flake8

I encourage people to write good commit messages, with a good description that explains what it does.

Personally I enjoy writing commit messages

It seems weird to me that we are trying to enforce commit messages when they are not really visible or used in the GitLab workflow at all. This is what you see most of the time when interacting with the commit list. I've taken time to compose a nice descriptive body and it is hidden by default:

which might or might not be useful depending on what is the content of the commit.

One way of encouraging users to create good commit message would be to have a better integration with the content of commit message in GitLab itself,

This also ties in the "Single Source Of Truth", where even if I craft descriptive commit messages I will probably have to describe what I did in the MR comments anyways, so that feels like duplicate work.

I never understood why we enforce The commit body must not contain more than 72 characters per line.

It is considerably harder to write proper sentences when you have to insert an enter every now and then just to follow the rule.

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.

With single-commit MRs I often can copy the commit message directly into the MR description, which is convenient.

While these particular indictments refer to credit card data, the laws do also reference authentication features. Two of the key points here are knowingly and with intent to defraud.

I could have released this data anonymously like everyone else does but why should I have to? I clearly have no criminal intent here. It is beyond all reason that any researcher, student, or journalist have to be afraid of law enforcement agencies that are supposed to be protecting us instead of trying to find ways to use the laws against us.

For now the laws are on my side because there has to be intent to commit or facilitate a crime

You should not only say what you did, but also why you did it. It’s even more useful if you explain why you did this over any other options.