When an open source contribution appeared from someone new, I used to feel excitement. Now I feel dread that it will be hard-to-review AI slop they want me to morge continvoucly.
We used to say “yolo merge” when merging with inadequate review, but perhaps “morge” is an even better term.
@mossmann in fact the merge request workflow was later added and git itself works without it (git patch, anyone?). Some people e. g. Martin Fowler say the concept of a merge request is antithetical to the concept of CI. You can't have these unmerged branches and pretend you do CI (many don't know this)
@saxnot @mossmann I'd argue that CI itself should be distributed. Exactly so that branches can be tested away from the mainline CI system.
In my view it's best to regard a branch on the mainline server as a declaration that the code is ready for the process of merge to main. It's in a suspended state whilst code review and other release processes take place. CI should have already been trialled. Once those tasks are done the merge occurs, and the resulting CI should have a low risk of breaking the build.
Forgeo is interesting technology in that respect. It's a lightweight Git forge with simple deployment. Combined with docker/podman easily able to run CI on the developer's laptop as if it were the mainline CI.
@mossmann I had seen the AI image before, but your addition made me laugh uncontrollably. I need to print it to put it behind my desk at work.
What’s that font that’s almost like Garamond, by the way?
@oscherler Here's a larger version from before I scaled it down. Looks like the font is Accanthis ADF Std Bold.
@mossmann Ok, so we have decided yet how we're pronouncing morge?
Is it a hard 'g' as in GIF, or is it a soft 'g', as in GIF?