As an aside, what is the motivation? There are some out there already. Truly just curious.

But you still need the user accounts. Which must be created and are verified by email. Then you have to generate tokens for them to call the api endpoint to add the star. I’m not saying it isn’t doable, but it would be non-negligible and GitHub is going to squash you back at some point creating all those accounts from one source.

How would the raspberry help? It is accounts needed.

deleted by creator

That’s why there will be many more Luigi’s before anything improves.

I was able to make no inferences about any of the statements or what they mean.

Awesome phonetic illustration. You should do a dictionary.

Do you really use it or are you just adding an alternative to the conversation? It is an interesting concept (commutation) but not likely to supplant git.

This indicative mood is something I would send back for correction or correct myself where I am the maintainer. However I understand that although this is pretty consistent through FOSS, it is not a settled matter especially in corpo-land. Most important is that it is consistent within a project. See many differing views here on Stackoverflow, noting the most popular answer though is imperative as Linus requests.

And here it is in the kernel contribution documentation.

Simple example:

• bad: Added foo interface.
• good: Add foo interface.

So the commit says what applying the patch will do, not what you worked on.

I didn’t say the source of failure. I said a source of ambiguity. And having also been in the industry for decades, I have encountered it many times, where a junior programmer or somebody new to a project read some documentation and assumed a behavior which in fact did not match the current implementation. So you may have been fortunate, but your experience is certainly not ubiquitous.

With respect to variable names, I’d suggest those too should absolutely be updated too if the name is given in a way that adds ambiguity.

I’m not saying comments are bad; rather that bad comments are bad, and sometimes worse than no comment.

And your colleagues are probably correct with respect to this sort of «what it does» commenting. That can be counterproductive because if the code changes and the comment isn’t updated accordingly, it can be ambiguous. Better have the code be the singular source of truth. However, «why it does it» comments are another story and usually accepted by most as helpful.

No I’m Spartacus.

It really forks the llamas ass!

Only kind of. That’s a backronym.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_storage#History

Got to have that high thread count, burst rate throughout. Does it have the cooled bobbin?

Fortunately, they aren’t being asked to do that. All the rust team was requesting was metadata about the call signatures so that they could have a grasp on expected behavior.

A bunch of people that either failed to understand the value of the moderation system or are just crybabies about being expected to follow the rules answering here.

It is easy to use and not nearly as toxic as most of the internet will claim. Research your question, ask clearly, include the code you attempted for a minimal reproduction, and include debugging details. If you don’t do those things, you are the problem, not the people closing your questions.

I use it often per month.

Well I don’t use obsidian as all. But as a matter of opening and linking notes, I use this tool because I like it, and it allows me to reference two separate vaults without issue.

obsidian.nvim