The OFFICIAL programming thread
-
I deal with tatas daily
-
@Zeppelin said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
I deal with tatas daily
Indian programmers? Not sure how they would help ranching.
-
TATA makes Jaguar, and Land Rover.
-
Poor Zep.
-
NSFW: Language warning
-
Snippet of an email I just sent:
Having reviewed the changes on (redacted) in conjunction with the reference (redacted), I don’t believe it will cause a problem when migrated to production.
*I don’t believe". Urgh.
I believe there’s a fucking problem with our system landscape and testing methodology if it requires me to make statements of faith about what is going to happen when changes are migrated to production.
-
As a person of faith, why not? Maybe end with “may the good lord bless you code”.
-
Yeah I should have at least ended the email with “Pray for us all”.
-
Anyway, I took one for the team. I consulted with two other devs before sending that email but I didn’t write “we believe”. I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing I can afford unemployment better than they can.
-
Body hell, the manager I wrote the above to approved the wrong change. That’s probably on its way to production and the change I was asked to investigate has probably missed the cutoff window.
This thing is giving me bad vibes now.
-
Can I have your stuff?
-
https://i.imgur.com/hX2CMMZ.jpg
Never go full Lithu-
TwainNo editing is gonna save you now-
Wingmannhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/rrpa_photos/72217/DSC_2528.JPG
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rrpa_photos/20416/PTOB 101_resize.jpg
-
No toys for either of you I’m afraid. The changes went to production
sixfour hours ago and nothing broke that I know of. -
@Kilemall said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
@Pakoon said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
Can I have your stuff?
I want the tuk tuk.
Dammit!
-
@Hog said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
No toys for either of you I’m afraid. The changes went to production
sixfour hours ago and nothing broke that I know of.Dammit!
-
@Hog said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
No toys for either of you I’m afraid. The changes went to production
sixfour hours ago and nothing broke that I know of.Aw fuck!
I mean congrats.
-
@Hog said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
No toys for either of you I’m afraid. The changes went to production
sixfour hours ago and nothing broke that I know of.OK, so here is where you tell him that your son actually wrote the email suggesting that they don’t go forward with the changes. Not to worry, you’ve changed the password to “Sondontknowitnow1234.”
-
@Jam said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
@Hog said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
No toys for either of you I’m afraid. The changes went to production
sixfour hours ago and nothing broke that I know of.OK, so here is where you tell him that your son actually wrote the email suggesting that they don’t go forward with the changes. Not to worry, you’ve changed the password to “Sondontknowitnow1234.”
It’s in production now anyway with no adverse consequences so it doesn’t really matter what I had said any more. And we don’t have an elegant way to rollback changes even they wanted to. As it is, it looks like I made the right call so I wouldn’t want to undo that.
Speaking of the tools we wrestle with, the problem was caused by a change to a method (that was going to prod) where other people working on a different issue had been modifying other parts of the same class and their changes were staying in QA. The issue rested on whether the CD tool would only migrate the change for the single method or not. The code for the CD tool is over 30 years old in some parts and is pretty opaque in terms of what it does sometimes. It was state of the art before CD was even a thing but it’s not any more.
We’ve just got approval to move to a git based CD pipeline this year which should get rid of all these issues. (Most) source rollbacks will be a cinch and even in the one QA system we’ll be able to test different batches of changes in isolation just by changing branches.
-
@Hog said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
@Jam said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
@Hog said in The OFFICIAL programming thread:
No toys for either of you I’m afraid. The changes went to production
sixfour hours ago and nothing broke that I know of.OK, so here is where you tell him that your son actually wrote the email suggesting that they don’t go forward with the changes. Not to worry, you’ve changed the password to “Sondontknowitnow1234.”
It’s in production now anyway with no adverse consequences so it doesn’t really matter what I had said any more. And we don’t have an elegant way to rollback changes even they wanted to. As it is, it looks like I made the right call so I wouldn’t want to undo that.
Speaking of the tools we wrestle with, the problem was caused by a change to a method (that was going to prod) where other people working on a different issue had been modifying other parts of the same class and their changes were staying in QA. The issue rested on whether the CD tool would only migrate the change for the single method or not. The code for the CD tool is over 30 years old in some parts and is pretty opaque in terms of what it does sometimes. It was state of the art before CD was even a thing but it’s not any more.
We’ve just got approval to move to a git based CD pipeline this year which should get rid of all these issues. (Most) source rollbacks will be a cinch and even in the one QA system we’ll be able to test different batches of changes in isolation just by changing branches.
Please post your git pipeline script here so I can do a find and replace your company ahit with my company shit and use it. I have learned enough tools this year and am not looking forward to diving into Gitlab too.
-
The Unhinged Nature of GTA V Source Code
