If you like building keyboards, you’ll end up using a couple of these.

I have 6!

As someone who partially uses depot but was still affected by this github issue, we obviously haven't moved over enough. We use your runners but github is still blocking us.

Hope you don't mind the public ask, it seems useful for others.

If we're using depot runners, and want to use them directly, or move off of github actions being the controller for when things run: what do you suggest?

Trigger the workflows directly on depot via CLI?

Yes, triggering Depot CI via the CLI is the sure fire way to avoid all dependencies on GitHub.

We’d need more details around what you’re seeing. It is true that if auth across GitHub is broken than we can’t copy your actions out to be used by Depot CI. However, we have a solution in the works for that as well.

In short, Depot CI, our own engine and control plane is not dependent on upstream actions control plane. But still has to listen for commit events to know if/when to run jobs on things like PRs. This to is being removed in the future.

Ugh, same. 30 mins with 2 devs trying to figure it out before they posted an update.

Now PRs are piling up! https://github.com/mohsen1/tsz/pulls

Sardonic but not useful.

1 ticket: you can only sell back, no name change. You’re solo, not going with anyone, this works.

2 tickets: you can either sell them both back, OR change ONLY one name once. This means you have the option of buying two tickets up front, before you lock-in your companion.

It works well, I’ve experienced this for festival tickets.

Same, our team has been on it for a year and it's very good.

It’s not 17m for an idea to improve git.

It’s 17m for a tool which hopes to serve companies and charge money and make more than 17m in profit as a result.

If you look at the set of dev tooling, teams will frequently pay many hundreds per dev on things like CI, Git tools, code review, etc.

And to be fair, GitHub is really quite bad for a lot of workflows. I haven’t used gitbutler, but my team pays ~$30 a month per dev for tools which literally just provide a nicer interface for stacking PRs, because it saves us WAY more than that in time.

This isn’t even an egregious example of VC, it’s just an enterprise dev tooling bet.

So it's gambling that they can extract money from open source project, by repackaging most of the existing features through a nice UX and hope business gamble their tech stack on it.

Great use of 17 million dollars.

I wouldn't say "buying software that saves us time" is gambling, but you do you.

But that’s not what VCs are doing. They’re not buying software that saves time. They’re betting on a teams ability to extract rent from a market through monopolistic practices like vendor lock-in. The most profitable software companies like Microsoft don’t make the most time saving software, in fact most of Microsoft’s offerings are garbage (ahem Teams) compared to alternatives. But Microsoft makes the most money due to marketing and distribution not because they make “time saving” software.

Anecdotally, Claude has worked far better for our elixir team than the others we’ve tried.

> I totally support the phone-free bar and restaurant experience

If you then expect an exemption because your phone use is different then I challenge that you don’t actually support the experience.

If you want to read news in a phone-free environment: bring a newspaper, a kindle, etc.

What experience are you expecting in a phone-free breakfast joint if you are there by yourself? Interupting other patrons meals to randomly talk to them? That sounds kind of like hell.

Boredom and being alone with your thoughts is not, as popularly believed, fatal.

Of course not, but its also not an exclusive experience you can only get at resturants.

And quite frankly noisey busy resturants are a subpar place to have that sort of experience. Most people who want to do that sort of thing go to a park or somewhere quiet with nature.

Then don’t go. No idea what the issue is, here.

100%. I have a guiding approach when solving problems: keep reframing and exploring until the solution becomes obvious.

I often find, if I've got a complicated solution, it’s because I haven’t fully examined the problem.