You’re right, I’m not representing the merge correctly. I was thinking of having multiple merges because for a long running patch branch you might merge main into the patch branch several times before merging the patch branch into main.

I’m so used to rebasing I forgot there’s tools that correctly show all the branching and merges and things.

Idk, I just like rebase’s behavior over merge.

I like flutter’s design where you do your markup and styling as code, and then it gets rendered via opengl. So you get that native performance without having to deal with the whole browser stack.

I don’t like how almost all software these days is just web apps masquerading as native apps, but they’re just so damn easy to write compared to anything else.

It probably won’t get rid of js’s dominance, but it’ll give people options. I already see some front end python and rust frameworks thanks to wasm. But for some reason I really don’t like the idea of writing html / css in my rust. But I don’t like the idea of html / css in my rust.

I feel the opposite, but for similar logic? Merge is the one that is cluttered up with other merges.

With rebase you get A->B->C for the main branch, and D->E->F for the patch branch, and when submitting to main you get a nice A->B->C->D->E->F and you can find your faulty commit in the D->E->F section.

For merge you end up with this nonsense of mixed commits and merge commits like A->D->B->B’->E->F->C->C’ where the ones with the apostrophe are merge commits. And worse, in a git lot there is no clear “D E F” so you don’t actually know if A, D or B came from the feature branch, you just know a branch was merged at commit B’. You’d have to try to demangle it by looking at authors and dates.

The final code ought to look the same, but now if you’re debugging you can’t separate the feature patch from the main path code to see which part was at fault. I always rebase because it’s equivalent to checking out the latest changes and re-branching so I’m never behind and the patch is always a unique set of commits.

Dang good catch on the second user, I wouldn’t have noticed since I usually don’t look at people’s profiles.

It’s kind of funny that reddit will become this chamber of advertisers making posts and fake users “engaging” while the real people all migrate to lemmy.

That sounds nice, I’ll try that out

Dang, the shared grocery list and meal planning was the best part of it.

I also quit whisk when it became samsung food. Does CopyMeThat let you have shared lists with other people?

You can squash merge so it goes into the main branch as one commit, that’s usually how I do it.

I wouldn’t say it needs serious work, I kind of like the homebrewed look of it, but there’s a lot of wasted space in the form of padding on mobile. I think the list of posts could just take up the full screen width and it’d be good.

Took a look and the article title is misleading. It says nothing about trust in the technology and only talks about not trusting companies collecting our data. So really nothing new.

Personally I want to use the tech more, but I get nervous that it’s going to bullshit me/tell me the wrong thing and I’ll believe it.

It’s not really fixable, right? They’re technically doing what the platform was made to do.