I’ve had that kind of reaction - on rebases also - and most times it was in fact a code smell pointing to a case of spaghetti code.
If you get to the point that you fear upstream merges/rebases into your WIP, stop for a second and ask yourself if maybe that might be an issue with too much interpendencies inside the code itself. Code should be as close to an directed acrylic graph as possible. (doesn’t count, I was not speaking of git! :b )
Forewarning : ops here, I’m one of the few the bosses come to when the “quick code” in production goes sideways and the associated service goes down.
soapbox mode on
Pardon my french but that’s a connerie.
Poorly written code, however fast it has been delivered, will translate ultimately into a range of problems going from customer insatisfaction to complete service outage, a spectrum of issues far more damageable than a late arrival on the market. I’d add that “quick and dirty code” is never “quick and dirty code with relevant, automated, test coverage”, increasing the likelihood off aforementioned failures, the breadth of their impact and the difficulty to fix them.
Coincidentally , any news about yet another code-pissing LLM bothers me a tad, given that code-monkeys using such atrocities wouldn’t know poorly written code from a shopping list to begin with, thus will never be able to maintain the produced gibberish.
This one is interesting. What java bias is linked to user experience in Jetbrains products exactly?
A merge from upstream once a day, at the beginning of the day.
I’m working on a DevOps setting, and even though we’re a small team, we have about two to three changes going through the pipeline a day.
If you keep your fork too long without syncing, it just get more complicated to merge, and more importantly if you need help from the upstream change author they’ll have moved on to another subject and the change won’t be as fresh in their mind as if you had merged the day after they pushed it.