I selfhost for >10 years, but only for receiving, i.e. I can not send anything from my domain, because I thought that would have been to much stress to set up.
My setup: I have a root server with DNS attached to it. On there is a postfix, with a minimal config that forwards all emails to my real address on posteo.eu. And posteo has not given me any trouble with any of my emails at all.
I use this setup, so I can easily give new email-addresses to individual web services, and it gives me the option to selectively block these addresses.
Last year I brought the big abo from proton, which includes throwaway mailadresses, and I am thinking about migrating my mail setup there.
> No one buys a Porsche because they want a sensible car for their family or they need something with large storage
I know two porsche-owners personally. One sometimes uses his porsche (non SUV, but the small fast one) to go on family vacations (with the kids cramped at the too small back seats, which seems funny to me). The other has an SUV and lives in the country with bad roads; They sometimes use their porsche to commute to work and for everyday-stuff like shopping.
> The other has an SUV and lives in the country with bad roads; They sometimes use their porsche to commute to work and for everyday-stuff like shopping.
That blows my mind.
I guess its the same mindset as people who buy a mercedes "jeep" (don't know the product id) or range rover and live the middle of the city.
They kind of spoke to it. Rebasing to bring in changes from main to a feature branch which is a bit longer running keeps all your changes together.
All the commits for your feature get popped on top the commits you brought in from main. When you are putting together your PR you can more easily squash your commits together and fix up your commit history before putting it out for review.
It is a preference thing for sure but I fall into the atomic, self contained, commits camp and rebase workflows make that much cleaner in my opinion. I have worked with both on large teams and I like rebase more but each have their own tradeoffs
Yes but specifically with a rebase merge the commits aren’t interleaved with the commits brought in from mainline like they are with a merge commit.
EDIT: I may have read more into GPs post but on teams that I have been on that used merge commits we did this flow as well where we merged from main before a PR. Resolving conflicts in the feature branch. So that workflow isn’t unique to using rebase.
But using rebase to do this lets you later more easily rewrite history to cleanup the commits for the feature development.
You'll still get interleaved commits. If I work on a branch for a week, committing daily and merging daily from main, when I merge to main, git log will show one commit of mine, then 3 from someone else, then another of mine, etc. The real history of the main branch is that all my commits went in at the same time, after seven days, even if some of them were much older. Rebase tells the real story in this case, merge does not.
That's because the unannounced firedrills don't involve setting the building on fire. A "drill" equivalent would be if we all pretended the internet is down sometimes, and in some cases that still might be impossible to do without negative consequences.
I like to browse HN via "/front" and "Go back day" and then look at the couple of top posts for each day. I don't see such a day-by-day view on TPE.
What is the "official" acronym? TPE? TP? TecPeu?
What is language policy? (e.g. it would be nice if people would post any language they want, and the system shows other users what language the link is, and then offers an alternative link to a translated version. I imagine this would be hard to implement in a way that is robust way, but maybe you when user submit a link, they can set the language themselves)
reply