But, like... wouldn't you want them to at least know the steps of `git add` -> `git commit` -> `git push` and then click the button on Github? And Gitlab has basically the same web UI.
I have no problem with letting an IDE or LLM handle those details in practice... but I don't think I'd want to work with someone who doesn't understand the very basics of what's going on under the hood.
Well, I can't read the GP's mind, but I'm fairly certain they didn't literally mean "candidate knows how to click one button in the web UI for a specific proprietary developer platform and type some stuff into a text box".
When I tell my LLM to "open a PR for those changes" (which is how I do it nowadays), my LLM understands that what I mean is "make a commit, push it to a remote and raise a PR".
Does it mean we've reached AGI when machines understand what we mean better than some humans?
> When I tell my LLM to "open a PR for those changes" (which is how I do it nowadays), my LLM understands that what I mean is "make a commit, push it to a remote and raise a PR".
This makes it seem like all of those things are part of a single operation to you. That doesn't make sense to me.
On the occasions where I've submitted a PR to a project (anywhere, not just on Github), making the commit was not part of the same operation. I'd already made the commit and satisfied myself that it captured everything I wanted, before making the PR. I don't see those things as part of a single operation. I don't think the poster you were responding to does either.
So you think the OP is asking candidates a question, where the solution is:
1. Navigate your browser to GitHub.mycompany.example.com
2. Click the repo name
3. Click pull requests
4. Click the source branch[1] and destination branch
5. Click "create pull request"
???
I started out by assuming this was some kind of good-faith disagreement, but I guess you're just trying to be funny.
[1] Presumably already extant, because they never mentioned anything about committing code, nor pushing it to github (and that's not the same operation!).
So I think the OP meant to have the candidate, um, open a PR. Which is not the same thing as making a commit and pushing it to a remote. Maybe you always conflate those operations, but that doesn't make them the same operation. If the OP actually meant that they ask the candidate to make a commit, push it to the remote, and then open a PR, I would have expected the OP to say, um, all of those things, instead of just the last one.
I couldn't say how the OP expected the candidate to open a PR, since I don't know what their standard workflow is. There are ways of doing it from the CLI, as well as through the web interface, as well as through various IDEs.
> I started out by assuming this was some kind of good-faith disagreement, but I guess you're just trying to be funny.
Please save your patronizing for another time. And stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Years ago I was the “git expert” on my team, the person you went to when you got into trouble. But I have long since moved to jj, and I basically don’t remember git commands anymore. I also don’t use GitHub much, so when I need to open a PR I prompt an LLM to do it for me.
> might know plenty of git, but haven't worked with Github
That seems very unlikely. Github is the entire reason git is so popular, vs. any of the other distributed VC systems.
Edit: I'll refine that, after a moment of thought. Git is popular because of Github. But, I guess that now maybe there are people who are using git because it's the popular/default version control choice, but they might not be using Github. They might be using another forge, something homegrown, or just manual builds.
Github was like Yahoo's directory, a way to share content in a searchable place and as a backup/bounce point. In the early days you could also upload to 'downloads' so it was a quick share host. Before that we had email, exposed ssh and cgit/gitweb but Github gave us `PR` to promote social interactions with forking. So it could be argued that Github tainted the spirit of git.
Having personally evolved from making date stamped zip files, to subversion and then to git, it earned its place quite quickly for myself and my roaming nature, didn't hurt who hacked it together either. When Linux adopted it from Bitkeeper, it became the way for many.
Lemmy seem to be political as hell. Reddit is political, but the feel is like there are good old paid political astroturfing.
Lemmy is like all the folks that bought that paid astroturfing and continue it, but sincerely.
And Reddit had corners, where people could hide and talk about interesting stuff, Lemmy doesn't seem to be able to compete in that, probably due to number of users (I'm not sure though).
I'm new on Lemmy (i.e. programming.dev), but I have the impression that there are the same "corners" with interesting stuff; though I must say that also in my 10 years of Reddit I never went to political communities.
> Lemmy is like all the folks that bought that paid astroturfing and continue it, but sincerely.
The politics you probably have in mind on Lemmy is mostly rooted in the traditional radical left. You probably couldn't really pay human astroturfers to do all that even if you wanted to because it's too baroque and sectarian. The market for paid political ads for communism or anarchism or whatever might exist sometimes among state intelligence services but I imagine it's more often the opposite of what you describe: infiltrating or boosting existing movements.
Anyway the general political outlook varies heavily by instance. It's worth knowing what you're getting into when you choose a home instance (or several; federation be damned).
You're probably talking about either "lemmy.ml" or "lemmy.world" which for some reason people think is the same as Lemmy, probably because that's what it's called. But if I registered hackernews.cloud and filled it with stuff that wouldn't mean HN supported that stuff.
They represent the three most oppressed minorities online: people who think real communism has both been tried and was successful, people who think humans have rights, and programmers who want to talk about actually programming.
Leftists believe reddit is conservative and rightists believe it's liberal, they're both right. The writing was on the wall when reddit went public and rolled out the default subs.
I have committed a sin of starting with the comments without reading an article, assumed it was about reading and writing text by humans and was increasingly confused by your first paragraph.
I tried to translate it as metaphor at first, but it didn't end up being coherent.
talking about that thing. does it only apply to some business/org. ? when a big bank launders money for years they get fines and continue to business like nothing happened, this happens every few years.
A candidate may be able to open a PR and not be able to make a commit without an IDE.
Another candidate might know plenty of git, but haven't worked with Github.
reply