|
Quite a number of my repos aren't pushed to DevOps because the apps are non-productions one-offs, or educational, or laboratories for experimenting with new tools, and I need another way to back them up. I thought I wouldn't need to intentionally back them up if they were only on my OneDrive (with the Always Keep on this Device" flag set).
And for those that are in DevOps I don't always want to commit and push at the end of the day. Maybe I should.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
TNCaver wrote: Quite a number of my repos aren't pushed to DevOps because the apps are non-productions one-offs, or educational, or laboratories for experimenting with new tools, and I need another way to back them up.
You could look into any of the free Git providers (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket). They all have a free tier with quite sizeable private repo offerings.
TNCaver wrote: I don't always want o commit and push at the end of the day. Maybe I should.
Yes, you should. Half ranting here: I know there is kind of a "shame" to push on private branches half finished work and stuff that is still not right. Besides the obvious safety advantage, in the long run, I find that commit history shows more about the development process and difficulties encountered than a single large commit with a short message. And for the shame part: we all make mistakes and there is no shame in finding and fixing our mistakes. It's always a learning process.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
|
We use DevOps as a central Git repository, but quite a number of my repos aren't pushed to DevOps because the apps are non-productions one-offs, or educational, or laboratories for experimenting with new tools, and I need another way to back them up.
And for those that are in DevOps I don't always want to commit and push at the end of the day. Maybe I should.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
OneDrive is one of those: "use at own risk", IMO.
I'm pretty certain I've had folders / files disappear when there were account / "owner hardware" issues. Might have been a past issue; or I imagined it. In any case, never again.
I first used it for sharing files, and that's all I'll use it for.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I would not use any cloud-based solution for primary storage. At best, I would use it as a backup.
As I've said many times before, if you don't own the hardware on which the data are stored, you don't own the data.
If you absolutely need to access you source version control away from the office, I would suggest setting up a VPN.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: As I've said many times before, if you don't own the hardware on which the data are stored, you don't own the data.
And as it has been shown several times too... 
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: If you absolutely need to access you source version control away from the office, I would suggest setting up a VPN.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Using OneDrive as a backup that was also my workspace was the idea. As for using the cloud, that's what my employer has opted for. They took my objections "under advisement" (wink wink nudge nudge).
But even if it was all on-prem I'd have the same problem to solve. And of course I work from home 100%, and you bet we use a VPN. Our security guys are quite serious about their role.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
I used my own version of OneDrive:
0: All code/projects live in shares on the h/o server and are accessible to my main system and my laptop through mapped drives.
1: The laptop uses the 'available offline' option on the mapped drives. When the laptop connects, it automatically synchs up any changes. It's a cheap and effortless backup and gives me full access to everything when I take the laptop on the road.
This has worked really well with just one caveat that I haven't been able to work out: debugging/running web apps with visual studio does not work anymore...it will run and start but session objects don't hold values!  It's easy enough just to copy those to a local drive when I need to. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to debug source code on a network share is a PITA, which is why I try to avoid it.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
Co-founded two famous bands. King Crimson and Foreigner. ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
In the Court of the Crimson King is my favorite KC disc.
RIP Ian
|
|
|
|
|
Damn R.I.P.
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
I never heard of him personally, but then again I am not from England... or 1968...
But that doesn't mean he wasn't famous or important.
R.I.P.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'm having Double Vision over that Cold as Ice comment.
Don't say anything to make me Hot Blooded.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey no disrespect, my dad when he was alive probably listened to him...
Okay, like I bet some people hear might not have ever heard of Bob Saget, and he just died...
I was just saying that I didn't know who he was, but I wish he hadn't died...
|
|
|
|
|
That was a "whoosh."
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Fu. I still love Foreigners... as do most of the QA peons, it's always Urgent.
GCS d--(d-) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
How do you categorize languages? A recent article on a certain mailing list has debunked "compiled" vs "interpreted". I have long stood by my 3-mutually-exclusive-category system:
Type 1) "Hey, look what I can do in only 7 lines!" (Python, C#, most new languages etc.)
Type 2) "Hey, look what I can do in only 7 characters!" (Perl, awk, golf-oriented gibberish)
Type 3) The good ones.
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
|
|
|
|
|
Memtha wrote: debunked "compiled" vs "interpreted"
I don't think that "debunked" is quite the best term, but yes, there's nothing about a language itself which means that it must or must not fit into only one of those buckets -- for the most part, any language could be in either or both -- it's just the difficulty of implementation.
"Turing-complete" (vs not) and "general purpose" vs "domain specific" are decent attributes though. As well as how rich the set of supported datatypes is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer "strongly typed" and "cr@p".
But that's just an opinion based on seeing the maintenance problems you can avoid with strongly typed languages.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Do latently-typed or duck-typed languages count as "strongly typed"? This is always a point of confusion for me with strong vs weak distinctions - there is no line in the sand. Except for the outliers (rigorously-typed vs un-typed) you can make arguments for the majority of type systems being both strong and weak in different regards. I think Typescript is a great example of this since it has a gradual, structural type system.
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion: No.
Typing should be explicitly visible in the program text, and clearly identified as a type.
Polymorphism, through subclasses, is OK. You can force run time type errors through casting, but casting is explicit.
As pointed out: No language is absolutely bound to being interpreted or compiled, but strict typing leans quite strongly towards a complete parsing of the source code before execution starts. When you do that, why not go all the way and generate the code? So strong typing leans towards compilation rather than interpretation, although not by definition.
|
|
|
|
|
That's really interesting that you consider readability as an attribute of strong typing. Not that it's wrong in any way; just that most attributes I've seen that people have come up with have been more function-oriented. Since your criteria have to do more with form, what's your opinion on inferred type systems like F# and Haskell?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
