My worst experiences (from the top of my head):

Project participates in Hacktoberfest but doesn’t review nor label-acknowledge PRs.

Project takes PR commits and replaces author when “merging” into main.

Invest a day into a 16 months open thing, create the PR, maintainer a few hours later: “I just implemented this”. Probably an unfortunate coincidence, but feels like sabotage.

Contributing to GitLab, even simple docs, became inaccessible, infeasible. When I see typos or link markup mistakes in docs I create a PR. GitLab has a whole, elaborate onboarding process with guides, ticket creation, talking about yourself, waiting for approval, etc. Then you try to edit and by necessity fork the GitLab repo, but it reaches free account repo limits which produces unclear, confusing, inaccessible issues while trying to make and submit the changes. So you learn about the separate reduced repo you can actually fork and work and submit on. So you do that. Elaborate PR description template, which I remove, because it’s a simple typo/syntax fix. They ask for more or sth. I quit; I close the MR and leave.

If it were critical I would set up an “email me on script run failure” wrap around the individual cron jobs. Simple exit code check, potentially with console output as email body is simple and useful.

I noticed I could not restore pg dumps as expected when migrating to a new server. I had to add some parameter to pg dump so it’s a better/more neutral dump or something, which was easier/able to restore. So - definitely check your backups.

Trying the restore locally is also an option. Just to verify it works and the expected data is there.

How important it is to verify and verify regularly depends on how much loss you’re willing to accept.

Once verified, as long as you don’t do big version upgrades or automation changes, I would expect it to continue to work indefinitely. A semi regular verification still makes sense, though.

At work I know my DB backups definitely work for other reasons, due to regular restores in non-prod.

For side projects I definitely recommend verifying it at least once, when setting up automated backups/scripts for backup creation.

The word “additionally” evading guardrails is comical.

You need structural separation. Separate agents for public vs private. Prompt or context washing is not enough.

Stuff like (in-site) header color or labels can also help significantly.

deleted by creator

I guess I don’t have many hosted side projects. Those I do, I don’t put them on separate domains. I doubt people use or care, so I haven’t added monitoring for individual projects specifically. I guess I could and should do that now that I established my own online monitoring without third-party free tier limitations.

I use Red Sift (free) for certificate monitoring, since Let’s Encrypt dropped expiry warning notifications. Given it’s automated, it’s never been an issue for my self-managed projects, though.

For is-online/is-reachable monitoring, after free services I used became more restricted, and none matched my simple needs, I created Meercat Monitor, which runs on my server and checks some of my and work related projects/services. Simple checks scheduled checks, email notification, and a simple history and status view. Something simple enough and open source so I can audit and manage sources.

I forgot to add the description and chapters. I added them now.

They go over how the web and frameworks decided against horizontal, apart from deliberate emphasis, they go over some desktop layout attempts, failures and successes (more of the same vs navigation), a chapter about (paper) documents as the source, and endless panes now using horizontal.

You can edit titles here on Lemmy. You can fix the title.

I second that monitor setup is a personal preference. Personally, I prefer alt+tabbing (repeatedly) over using multiple monitors. No need to rotate my head, to seek with my eyes. My colleagues seem to prefer using multiple monitors. One colleague has an ultra-wide. For me. a single 1440p is best.

What makes you think it’s a lockfile issue? If they sighted a patch upgrade then updated the lockfiles but then noticed a breaking change, then lockfiles are irrelevant.

If it’s actually like they claim, I understand the frustration. (Not that I know this project in particular or how it gets integrated.) Without clear versioning and/or changelogs/release notes managing upgrades is cumbersome, sometimes impossible.

In some cases I’ve had to ask for clarification in PRs because release notes were not clear, PR was not clear, and resolved ticket was also not clear on the thing or solution.

Apparently they had issues before, so maybe they could have expected “patch may not be patch-only”.

I don’t think there’s a particular need to defuse into a productive discussion. Something like that, with no repro or respect - lock and close, with a comment on why/that onproductive and disrespectful/what it could have been.

Tone should always be respectful. Something like this should have been a respectful, open suggestion, explaining the issues no clear semver causes.

If they don’t respond to your needs - you can accept it or leave/fork.

The first version included a ‘Fuck you’ but they edited it away.

I was wondering why it didn’t show as a cross post in the lemmy-auto-linking discovery. The desc-linked source doesn’t load at all for me.

I hope this isn’t considered a “meme” by the rules. Kinda depends on the definition - which the rules has none of.

:squint: :P

Depends on the spec/implementation. If it’s random generated tokens then I imagine they’re not [necessarily] one per user. You could generate an arbitrary number and get new ones arbitrarily, regularly.

Without some technical information, with only this press release, we can’t tell.

The title is non-telling, the metadata page description is non-telling, no post description. What is this about?

This community’s rule 3:

If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos

Looks like the video itself also has no useful description. Only an unlabeled ad.

Copying the generated AI summary from YouTube from the description section:

The PrimeTime analyzes claims made by Anthropic and Boris regarding the state of modern software development. By examining technical issues with Claude Code, this critique questions the narrative that coding is largely solved, suggesting that the current push toward fully agentic workflows might be misleading and potentially harmful to professional software engineers.

dead

Connection timed out Error code 522

What’s the tl;dr? What’s the language for?

I scrolled through, but it wasn’t quite obvious.