• 1 Post
  • 948 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • As LiPoly said, it doesn’t really solve the problem. It’s not useless, it does accomplish something, but not that. Locking dependencies isn’t a security thing, it’s a reproducible builds thing. You can accomplish that by just using a traditional static version of everything, but now you’ve got a maintenance headache as you’re constantly needing to go in and update your dependency versions. You could instead use version ranging, but now you never actually know which version of a dependency any given build is going to end up using. Locking allows you to have the best of both worlds.

    To understand how this works, lets take a look at a hypothetical. Lets say you have a code base, and a CICD setup. Additionally you’re using a git-flow style release management where your release version is in master, your active development is in develop, and your feature work is done in feature branches. What you do is setup your version ranges to cover what the semantic versions of things say should be compatible (generally locked major version, and possibly locked minor depending on the library, but unlocked patch). In your CICD for CI builds of develop and feature branches you include a step that updates your lock file to the latest version of a library matching your version range. This insures that your develop and feature branches are always using the latest version of dependencies. For your master branch though, its CI job only builds, it never updates the lock file. This means when you merge a release to master your dependencies are effectively frozen. Every build from the master branch is guaranteed to use exactly the same versions of dependencies as when you merged it.




  • 99% of those outcomes are bad, and 100% of the most likely ones are. The only vaguely positive outcome would be if Trump was immediately impeached AND convicted and considering congress couldn’t even manage that the last two times when he was blatantly guilty that’s effectively impossible.

    So yeah, a Trump win is the end of the US. Even if he keeled over dead of a heart attack immediately after assuming office his VP is just as bad (worse in some ways). We’ve seen their playbook, project 2025 lays out exactly how they’re planning to destroy the US, and Trump has repeatedly talked about how he plans to run his dictatorship. When people tell you who they are (repeatedly) believe them. Trump badly wants to be a dictator in the style of Putin or Kim Jong Un. All he’s waiting on is the opportunity and we can not give it to him!


  • Ah, see you made a mistake in step one by expecting Republicans to use logic.

    Basically the timeline near as I can tell is, first the publishing company decided to stop printing and distributing a number of books. This was their own internal decision not prompted by anyone outside the company. Second Fox News invented a story from whole cloth about “the woke left” banning those books. This of course got all the talibangicals in a lather and so they decided to “retaliate” by banning “woke” books. The fatal flaw of course being that they can’t actually define what “woke” is so that just flailed randomly against some minority groups. Because of the broad and ambiguous language they inevitably ended up banning a bunch of Dr. Seuss books.

    Said another way:

    MAGA used *ism against The Woke.

    MAGA is confused.

    MAGA hurt itself in its confusion.


  • A recent survey found that 69 percent of American adults are seriously stressed about the 2024 presidential election.

    That should be 100%. Our Democracy (what little there actually is) is hanging by a thread and there’s a big orange turd running around with scissors. If Trump wins that’s it, game over, the inmates are running the asylum and the dumbest, craziest, and meanest of the bunch will have just crowned himself dictator for life. If Harris wins we get to kick the can down the road for four more years and maybe if we work really hard claw back a little bit of the democracy we theoretically have.