0 Followers
0 Following
2 Posts
Gordon Mohr, maker of software.

Twitter: http://twitter.com/gojomo

Project: http://thunkpedia.org

Idea blog: http://memesteading.com

Older blog: http://gojomo.blogspot.com

Homepage: http://xavvy.com (username @ here for email contact)

My HN peeve is formulaic downbeat comments, like: "How is this news, I already knew this!" "…Betteridge's Law…" "I stopped reading at…"
This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.

Officialhttps://
Support this servicehttps://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup

If you're relying on a serialized 'source of truth', against which everyone must independently ensure their changes sanely apply in isolation, the. you've already resigned yourself to a single-threaded process that's slower than what improved merges aim to enable.

Sure, that works – like having one (rare, expensive) savant engineer apply & review everything in a linear canonical order. But that's not as competitive & scalable as flows more tolerant of many independent coders/agents.

Should you be counting on confusion of an underpowered text-merge to catch such problems?

It'll fire on merge issues that aren't code problems under a smarter merge, while also missing all the things that merge OK but introduce deeper issues.

Post-merge syntax checks are better for that purpose.

And imminently: agent-based sanity-checks of preserved intent – operating on a logically-whole result file, without merge-tool cruft. Perhaps at higher intensity when line-overlaps – or even more-meaningful hints of cross-purposes – are present.