Used trunk-based dev a lot. Not a fan. It sounds good on paper, but in practice, it gets messy fast and code quality is hard to maintain, especially when teams are remote.
What actually works is trunk-based deployments — keep main always deployable, and ship from there. Simple.
PRs, are underrated. They’re great for sharing context. You get inline comments, CI runs, you can test stuff in isolation by spinning up infra, and teammates actually see what’s changing.
Stacked diffs make juggling multiple PRs manageable. And yeah, PR reviews can slow you down, but honestly, I think that's a plus. Slowing down just enough to have another human look at the code pays off more often than not.
I don’t understand why PRs are being discussed here at all – doesn’t anyone serious use trunk based development with code reviews? How is that different from a PR? Seems like we need to disentangle the discussion of whether code review is good from whether feature branches vs trunk based dev are good. Those are completely unrelated questions to me.
I think there are a lot of interesting questions about using feature flags (a baby branch) vs actual branches. Personally I’m pro flags and anti branches, after a lot of experience in developer tools and CI.
Definitely feature flags are the way to go. Having those code paths integrated early doesn't cost much and makes it basically free when you want to "merge" the feature into default.
This does require your software to have a decent architecture such that feature flags aren't littering every part of your codebase, though. Ideally you want something like a whole module/plugin being enabled/disabled right at the entrypoint of your program/module. But this also pays dividends in the long run.
There are different flavours of TBD. Some use short-lived feature branches, some commit directly to master. The article advocates for the latter.
PRs basically have a hard-requirement on branches (or equivalent, like fork), because the code that is being requested to pull needs to be available somewhere. The article also advocates for not using pull requests.
However people who take this position also often advocate for post-merge code review. And more advocate for pair programming or mob programming, which they consider to represent code review as well. So branchless TBD isn’t incompatible with code review, just code review as it is commonly practiced.
I'm pretty sure trunk-based development includes using feature branches and MRs/reviews etc. I didn't get the impression we were always supposed to commit directly to master (although that is possible for trivial things which reduces overhead).
If your team is very small then strictly creating feature branches and pressing the merge button immediately because there's nobody left to review it is silly. I like that it gracefully degenerates into just committing directly to the trunk when it makes sense.
This works with git (or DVCS in general) because your local "master" or whatever is a short lived branch. People seem to forget but with git you are branching every time you clone. Obviously committing broken stuff and WIPs directly to the trunk isn't going to work.
One thing I really appreciated during the peak years of working with XSLT was how much I learned about XPath. Once it clicks, it’s surprisingly intuitive and powerful. I don’t use XSLT much these days, but I still find myself using XPath occasionally. It’s one of those tools—once you understand it, it sticks with you.
I’ve had some moderate success with a couple of open-source projects, and I get where you’re coming from. Promotion is hard work, especially if you’re used to just building.
Here’s what worked for me:
Start with a solid project page – Focus on making your plugin polished easy to install and use via a project page. Good docs and instructions also drives search to your plugin organically.
Create useful content – Blog posts, guides, or even short articles that explain how and why you built the plugin something like behind the scenes. People read this stuff.
Use GitHub topics – Tag your repo well. People browse topics and trending pages. This is actually how one of our projects started getting noticed.
Submit to awesome lists – there are “awesome” lists related to IntelliJ plugins Java dev tools, AI tools send a PR to add your project. It’s a great way to get visibility among the right audience.
Be genuinely helpful in your niche – If your plugin helps with a common pain (e.g. repetitive Java boilerplate), hang out in relevant forums or threads (like here, Reddit, etc.). When you help someone, they’ll often check out your work.
See how it all goes and know when to move on, Good luck with your plugin.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
If you don’t mind, could you share the GitHub repository of your product?
I’m not very good at promotion or presentation — honestly, I’m below average.
So if I could see an example of how you do it, it would be incredibly helpful for me.
Same here—I missed it the first time around and found it pretty weird when I finally watched it.
But on a recent trip to the Lake District, we ended up visiting a bunch of the filming spots, including the infamous telephone box in Bampton (still around and in good condition).
That kind of changed how I saw the movie—it started to feel more like a bunch of odd little vignettes, each with its own strange charm. My partner and her family are big fans and talk about it all the time, so it’s slowly grown on me. Definitely not a “one sitting” kind of film.
> You’ll find people in every hobby who are more into the gear than the actual activity
Honestly, that’s part of the fun for some of us, even early on. I’ve been playing guitar for a while now, and while I enjoy it, the repetitive nature can sometimes get dull. Exploring new gear and chasing different tones has been my way of breaking through those ruts.
Yes, it’s expensive and it eats into practice time — no doubt. But some of us are just wired to enjoy the experimentation. I eventually found a setup I really like, but I don’t regret going through the gear phase. It kept things exciting and helped me stay connected to the hobby.
Don't get me wrong here, I am deeply interested in gear and sound, after all I design and build my own modular synthesizer modules, guitar pedals, speaker cabinets and so on.
So the reality of what forms a sound matters to me because I like to be in control of the result. And that means that I can't rely on the countless wrong poetic fantasies of people in the market to sell more gear, consisting of cosmetic stuff that doesn't impact the sound.
That does not mean I spend no time researching gear, quite the opposite. I just complained that what people think impacts their sound isn't what actually impacts their sound, because they have been given factually wrong mental models. And I know they are factually wrong because I experimented with applying them in practise.
E.g. one laughable mental model is sound per material analogy. You use silver in a cable (a good conductor at least), so that must therefore make for a "silvery" tone (typically they hear that in the high frequency range somewhere). Oh no the manufacturer used metal in the speaker enclosure? So now it sounds metallic and sterile. They used wood? Warm and rich. They used spongy mushrooms? Probably very psychadelic, you get the idea. Reasoning on the level of a kindergardener.
And that is it. No measurement, no blind A/B test, just mumbo-jumbo and fools who swear they could hear the gras grow if someone just tells them there was gras growing while the lawn is made of plastic.
For silver cables you can do a null test. Run the same signal through 5m of copper and 5m of silver and subtract one from another, while carefully making sure the levels match. The difference will be some noise down there at the edge of your audio interfaces recording capabilities. And that difference is absolutely inaudible. But what about the different higher conductivity of silver? Just use more copper. If there is any topic we know a ton about it is how electrons transmit charge in conducters and so far no impactful special frequency and dynamic-changing properties have been found in a piece of wire.
Meanwhile everybody skips room acoustics, cause that is boring and labour intensive and involves having to understand how complex sound behaves in confined spaces and how to measure that. And lets not ponder why Hifi people use unbalanced connections..
It is easier to sell someone highly pure silver cables than it is to sell them bass absorber their room would actually need to listen to the music some sound engineers mixed in decades ago on NS-10s.
TL;DR: I just find it sad that people can't just enjoy music listening or music making without buying into esotheric nonsense that does not describe reality as it is. Music is already magical. The hear it is made on and the stuff it is played back on is purely physical however. And that does not take away from the magic, IMO it adds to it.
Good cables (Though maybe not silver, that shouldn't matter much), ironically, actually do make an audible difference. Just good, oxygen free, low capacitance cable is what you want. Because guitars are high impedance and how tone pots are wired and the input your plugging into (Be it a pedal, amp, or interface) also usually being high impedance, how much capacitance (Not resistance, not really) matters a lot in where the natural cutoff of the passive LRC circuit your making. Go listen to some demos on Youtube just swapping cables, it matters.
It does mostly matter for noise though, yeah.
Also, active guitars largely get around these problems, as do low-impedance pickups.
I find it weird that people chase all these different pickups and sounds instead of just getting a modern, active, flat-response pickup (See Cycfi's Nu & Spectra series) and EQing and compressing to the response they want.
Like others mentioned, this is mostly an ethnic Kazakh tradition, not something specific to Kyrgyzstan. I visited the eagle festival in Ölgii (Mongolia) a year ago, a teenage girl won. They represent their village. There were a lot of participants, and the event ran long. It’s clearly grown in popularity, especially thanks to tourism, and doesn’t seem like a fading tradition anymore.
Yeah, I’ve spent some time building IntelliJ plugins, and honestly, the authoring experience has some real limitations. It’s not the easiest platform to work with, especially when it comes to writing automated tests. That might be part of the reason why their or any third-party AI plugins don’t feel as smooth as the ones on VS Code.
I recently moved to London(been a few years) and love the city, but the cost of living is extremely high—whether it’s dining out, attending concerts, going to the theatre, or especially paying rent.
A large portion of my salary goes toward rent and utilities. Fortunately, I work in tech, but I often wonder how others even manage.
Workplace conversations revolve around how expensive everything is and sharing tips on saving money. It’s definitely a source of anxiety.
The network effect also works in reverse. The collapse of a network can happen very quickly. Facebook wasn't just functionally better than Myspace. Myspace experienced two really bad things at once, uncontrolled spam and adding display ads, at the same time, in 2008. It was easy to get users to just lose their daily Myspace habit and replace it with Facebook.
LinkedIn is unlikely to be mismanaged as poorly as Myspace was but there will be openings for competitors. Myspace and Facebook were unique because they were both very interchangable at that point, although Myspace was kind of like the "public" internet while Facebook had already dropped the edu email requirement, it was still heavily skewed college educated at that point.
Also worth pointing out, the edu email addresses requirement for Facebook likely did a lot for keeping their early network clean of bots and spam at a minimum cost. LinkedIn, on the other hand, basically hijacked their user's address books and sent out email impersonating those users, meanwhile ignoring unsubscribe requests and spam complaints. Which certainly sounds like something someone would end up in jail for doing (they did get in trouble for this.)
What actually works is trunk-based deployments — keep main always deployable, and ship from there. Simple.
PRs, are underrated. They’re great for sharing context. You get inline comments, CI runs, you can test stuff in isolation by spinning up infra, and teammates actually see what’s changing.
Stacked diffs make juggling multiple PRs manageable. And yeah, PR reviews can slow you down, but honestly, I think that's a plus. Slowing down just enough to have another human look at the code pays off more often than not.