avita1

Joined 12 years ago

Karma

176

Submissions

Member since

Nov 27

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 6 months ago

IMO this tool is basically allowing you to do that, it just takes care of the bookkeeping to associate the series of smaller PRs with eachother which is possible today but requires a lot of clicking.

Comment · 3 years ago

Is this practically true? Yes, anyone can clone any repo from Github, but surely scraping all of Github would run into rate limits?

The terms and conditions say as much https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

How State's Consumers Lost with Electricity Deregulation (2000) latimes.com

3 avita1 3 years ago 0 comments

Comment · 3 years ago

How do you solve the context propagation issue with eBPF based instrumentation?

E.g. if you get a RPC request coming in, and make an RPC request in order to serve the incoming RPC request. The traced program needs to track some ID for that request from the time it comes in, through to the place where the the HTTP request comes out. And then that ID has to get injected into a header on the wire so the next program sees the same request ID.

IME that's where most of the overhead (and value) from a manual tracing library comes from.

Comment · 3 years ago

> So you have endless "Fix a" "Typo" "fixup" "revert redo" "add y missed in z" commits and then the squash pushes all that crap into the commit message for whatever the final mess will be?

In Github at least you can set the behavior to take the PR description by default as the squashed commit message. In fairness this is not the default. The default behavior for squash merges is to ask for a new commit message right as you hit the merge button, and the default is all of the messages from the commits being squashed together.

> make no effort to produce high-quality independent commits

I'm partial to sqaush merges when using github. I don't put much effort into the individual commit messages, instead I put lots of effort into the PR description (the thing reviewers will read, and what will eventually become the commit message in revision history). That said, one of my favorite features from gerrit at a past job was that the commit message itself could be reviewed.

Comment · 3 years ago

Did Google interviews change dramatically around 2012?

Pykrete en.wikipedia.org

16 avita1 3 years ago 0 comments

Comment · 3 years ago

This isn't catching the panic though, this is propagating the panic through the parent goroutine. The whole program will still shut down, but the stacktrace that shows up in the panic contains not only information information about the goroutine that panicked, but also the launching goroutine. That can help you figure out why the panic happened to begin with.

Comment · 4 years ago

Something I've increasingly wondered is if the model of CI where a totally pristine container (or VM) gets spun on each change for each test set imposes an floor on how fast CI can run.

Each job will always have to run a clone, always pay the cost of either bootstrapping a toolchain or download a giant container with the toolchain, and always have to download a big remote cache.

If I had infinity time, I'd build a CI system that found a runner that maintained some state (gasp!) about the build and went to a test runner that had most of its local build cache downloaded, source code cloned, and toolchain bootstrapped.

Comment · 4 years ago

Understanding amendments would be a very good use case. Often changes to the law are not new laws, but changes in other laws. Any time I've tried to actually parse the law, I've found getting a good picture of the current state of the law, and a snapshot of the law in the past is tricky.

To take this example I found off the NYS assembly website legalizing adultery (it was the first one I found, I swear)

https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=A0010...

It's phrased as "Section 255.17 of the penal law is REPEALED", but if you try to find "the penal law", but if you look up a a copy of the penal code do you see 255.17 in it? If so, how can you find out what was actually repealed. If not, do you need to hunt through every possible amendment to figure out the state of the law is at the time of reading?

Comment · 5 years ago

Cool article, I'm not sure I agree with the headline.

I used to write low-scale Java apps, and now I write memory intensive Go apps. I've often wondered what would happen if Go did have a JVM style GC.

It's relatively common in Go to resort to idioms that let you avoid hitting the GC. Some things that come to mind:

* all the tricks you can do with a slice that have two slice headers pointing to the same block of memory [1]

* object pooling, something so common in Go it's part of the standard library [2]

Both are technically possible in Java, but I've never seen them used commonly (though in fairness I've never written performance critical Java.) If Go had a more sophisticated GC, would these techniques be necessary?

Also Java is supposed to be getting value types soon (tm) [3]