• 0 Posts
  • 52 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 23rd, 2024

help-circle
  • Microservice from the start may be a lot of overhead, but it should at least be made with that scalability in mind. In practice to me, that just means simple things like make sure you can configure it via environment vars, run it out of docker compose or something because you need to be able install it on all your dev systems and your prod server. That basic setup will let you scale if/when you need to, and doesn’t add anything extra when planned from the start.

    Allocating infrastructure on a cloud service with auto scaling is the hard part imo. But making the app support the environment from the start isn’t as hard.









  • 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 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.






  • Yea, service will always be required. What I think it’s about, even though it’s not explained well in the article, is fixing software / poor mechanical design issues in their parts. If 5% of cars come in for a specific issue that can be prevented, then they’ll fix the designs so that same issue doesn’t happen. Leading to 0 service required for that part (as an ideal, not a reality).

    It’s not gonna happen, but it’s a goal they can actively work towards to improve the cars.

    p.s. i don’t own a tesla or care what they do. Just sharing my thoughts on the article. I don’t really know why I’m here…