I've been particularly feeling like this regarding AI code reviewers recently - I don't want a copilot that will do their own review, I want a hud that will make it easier for me to understand the change.
I've been toying with crafting such a code review tool as a side project recently: https://useglide.ai
Looks really nice! I'm wondering though whether this is luring me into a dangerous complexity cliff.
It seems easy to start using, but will I run into some issues a few months down the line like a package that's not available through Nix, or some Nix issue, and then I'm back to dealing with Nix's complexity only that I got there while staying clueless about Nix.
With the exception of a specific engineers who we checked with, our process includes masking developer aliases, names, etc. It does seem that version control was a lot more basic back then. We're seeing comments on Twitter that it's likely this was under the SLM system, which includes holding an exclusive lock on specific files. (Some history here: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180122-00/?p=97...)
GitHub allows stacking PRs
you send PR1 to master
and PR2 is a pull request to PR1's branch, the diffs look good, and when PR1 is merged GitHub automatically changes its target branch to master.
Yea, I don't quite understand how the article's product is different from this. I also don't understand how anyone uses Github in a professional context without using the workflow you describe...
EDIT: Ah, from comments further downthread, it seems that the level of stacking enabled is much deeper, as a lot of the manual process is automated. I stopped using Critique over half a decade ago so I no longer remember the details of how it handled this.
The #welcome channel in the Pants community Slack (https://pantsbuild.slack.com) is the best place to discover what large companies are using Pants 2, including Fortune 500 companies.
I'm preparing to launch a series of user interviews on our blog (https://blog.pantsbuild.org/) in coming weeks. Those in-depth conversations explore things like how the Pants 2 adoption process has gone, benefits their team is experiencing on the ground, pragmatic comparisons with alternate solutions the company has used or evaluated, etc.
That's probably DRM protected content, it's not Javascript hack but a mecahnism that's built in deeper.
A high level overview of how it works on Android is here(the secure texture part):
"Well, at Trader Joe's, the reality is that over the last couple of decades we've invested those resources in our people rather than build an infrastructure that eliminates the need for people,"
> build an infrastructure that eliminates the need for people
I don't understand that reasoning. I ordered groceries online today, and the groceries were packed by a person and delivered by a person (who wouldn't have his job if there were no truck to drive to my house). The IT system that supports all that is built and maintained by people. The truck fleet is maintained by people. This certainly required more person-hours of work than a cashier would have done if I had gone to the store myself. (The delivery service is operated by the same company that owns the supermarket chain, and uses trucks with the company's name on them, so I'm assuming that all these people are real employees, not gig workers.)
Also, the closest Trader Joe's store to me is a half hour drive in dense suburban traffic, and is crowded with people. I'd love to try their amazing stuff, but it's not worth the time and effort to me.
I've been particularly feeling like this regarding AI code reviewers recently - I don't want a copilot that will do their own review, I want a hud that will make it easier for me to understand the change.
I've been toying with crafting such a code review tool as a side project recently: https://useglide.ai