I understand forking is sometimes needed, but it's also somewhat discouraging to see that the differences couldn't be reconciled.
As long as people are aligned on advancing the Ruby ecosystem, I think it should be possible to cooperate even if there are disagreement in other areas [which political party you support, differences in personal opinions, etc].
Maybe it'll be resolved eventually, just like Merb <> Rails, Bundler <> RubyGems and RubyTogether <> RubyCentral were eventually merged. That's what I'm hoping for!
This is the part that I think most politicians simply don't understand.
I've been trying to argue this point with my government several times (some MPs even replied friendly, so they'd actually read it, but still don't understand or believe it).
With a semi-linear merge strategy, you rebase (without --fast-forward) before merging, so the history ends up looking like this:
* c8be0c632 Merge pull request #1538 from my-org/api-error-logging
|\
| * 80ecc4985 Fix security warning, bump nokogiri
| * 750613638 Log and respond with more detailed validation errors in the API
| * 0165d6812 Log code and details when rendering an API error response.
| * 1d4daab48 Refactor email validation result to include a descriptive message
| * 635214092 Move media_type logging into context_logging
|/
* 1cccd4412 Merge pull request #1539 from my-org/profile-clarify
|\
| * 87b342a32 Rename profile default to migration target
| * 2515c1e59 Fix disallow removing last profile in company
|/
* b8f3f1658 Merge pull request #1540 from my-org/customer
|\
| * 064b31232 Add customer-specific taxed allowance reduction
|/
* 3cf449f94 Merge pull request #1528 from my-org/console-logging
|\
| * 99657f212 Don't log to rails console in production
|/
* 8c72e7f19 Merge pull request #1527 from my-org/gemfile
It makes it easy to look at the Git history both at the 'PR level' kind of like a change log (`git log --merges --decorate --oneline`) or dig down into each PR to see all commits.
FWIW, Mergify's Merge Queue supports this as long as you run it without batching or parallel checks. We expose a config option for semi-linear history while still keeping CI green.
Does anyone know if immutable also means I cannot delete a release? (even after say 3 years)
Because I'm guessing allowing deletes would also make re-publishing possible, which would probably defeat the purpose. However, having them stick forever can also be annoying.
"What are your main use cases for search or log indexing?"
To me, storing and searching logs is quite different from most other search use-cases, and it's not obvious that they should be handled by the same piece of software.
For example, tokenization, stemming, language support many other things and are basically useless in log search. Also, log search is often storing a lot of data, and rarely retrieving it (different usage pattern from many search use-cases which tend to be less write-heavy and more about reads).
I know ElasticSearch has had success in both, but if I were Manticore/Typesense/Meilisearch I'd probably just skip logs altogether.
Loki, QuickWit and other such tools are likely better suited for logs.
Went from ES and sharding hell to less of a sharding hell with OS on AWS. I've been looking for a replacement ever since first friday evening sharding party with infrastructure team.
yeah, you haven't lived until you curled in blind rage _cluster/allocation/explain and _cat/shards?h=index,shard,prirep,state,unassigned.reason | grep UNASSIGNED every few seconds; In production party, with tarantulas on your back asking for status, of course.
It's not a drop-in replacement in general, but it can be seen as a drop-in replacement for Elasticsearch in the ELK stack because:
- You can send data to Manticore using Logstash (L)
- You can visualize the data using Kibana (K)
That is the most bullshit thing I’ve read in a while.
Send data to manticore via logstash does not make you an elasticsearch replacement. And a lot of elasticsearch use cases are not using kibana.
(Logstash can basically ingest and output to everything…)
FYI, manticore is not "new". It has been around many years, and is based on Sphinx search which has been around longer than, I think, Lucene (which elasticseaech is built on)
Basically, the 'translate this' button you see on Twitter or Instagram next to comments in foreign languages. This API would make it trivial for all developers to add that to their web apps.
I don't know enough to understand the DOM argument, but
> The spec assumes a certain form of translation backend, exposing information about model availability, download progress, quotas, and usage prediction. We'd like to minimize the information exposure so that the implementation can be more flexible.
reads to me as Chrome once again trying to export itself verbatim as a "standard" and Mozilla pointing out that that's not really applicable to others.
Also the WebKit post seems to raise somewhat similar arguments but on the basis of fingerprinting/privacy problems.
Maybe? I read that as more of a compatibility thing; if sites depend on information that Chrome exposes, then it's easy for them to have bugs on browsers that don't expose the exact same information (possibly by way of that information not even existing or making sense for a different implementation).
Rather, it's an API developers can use to add inline translation to web apps.
For example, under a comment in your app, you can (a) detect the language, and (b) if it's different from the current users/browsers language, offer to translate it with a small link (c) if the user clicks the link, the content is translated to their language.
As long as people are aligned on advancing the Ruby ecosystem, I think it should be possible to cooperate even if there are disagreement in other areas [which political party you support, differences in personal opinions, etc].
Maybe it'll be resolved eventually, just like Merb <> Rails, Bundler <> RubyGems and RubyTogether <> RubyCentral were eventually merged. That's what I'm hoping for!