text stringlengths 0 2.35k |
|---|
• Using new Go features versus waiting for others to implement them |
• Managing versioning in large-scale Go projects with multiple repositories |
• Considerations for using the "any" type in Go, including potential use cases |
• A brief interview with Robert Ross about the FireHydrant reliability platform and its benefits |
• Strategies for reviewing and managing large pull requests |
• Commit history is not always thoroughly examined |
• Developers often dive directly into code changes rather than studying commit history or reviewing pull requests in detail |
• Code reviews can be challenging, especially when there's a large amount of new code or significant refactoring involved |
• In such cases, developers may choose to review and comment on code directly within an IDE |
• Developers sometimes re-read entire pull requests to better understand complex changes |
• Difficulty with understanding technical terms and concepts |
• Importance of asking questions when unsure |
• Process for commenting on pull requests (PRs) |
• Role-based testing and review expectations |
• Factors influencing review time (length of PR, scope of change) |
• Reasonable timeframe for expecting a PR review |
• Different commitments for internal vs. external contributors |
• Reviewing external PRs and setting a reasonable timeline |
• Prioritizing reviews based on importance and code consistency |
• Discussing a channel with a buffer as a concept for limiting concurrent access to a resource |
• Implementing a "poke" system for reviewing PRs |
• Teaching Go concepts through unusual examples, such as simulating a food queue |
• Importance of reading documentation and improving it when necessary |
• Easy contribution mechanisms in documentation, such as edit buttons that lead directly to GitHub pull requests. |
• Discussing corrections for non-native English speakers in code review comments |
• Importance of clarity and politeness in code review comments |
• Tips for interviewing, including being nice and providing reasons for suggestions |
• Red flags to look out for in interviews, such as aggression or trying to fool the interviewer |
• Value of honesty in interviews and saying "I don't know" when unsure |
• Cloud native complexity and observability challenges |
• Pain points in Kubernetes reliability and observability |
• Data growth and its impact on business outcomes |
• Challenges with engaging in open source projects |
• Barriers to contributing to external open source projects, including finding meaningful issues and lack of mentorship or feedback |
• Perception that the bar for contributing to open source is too high |
• Leading issues in PRs (package management) |
• Unpopular opinions in coding practices |
+ Keeping code concise (<100 columns) |
+ Wrapping errors instead of returning "new" |
+ Code ownership and consensus among team members |
+ AI-generated code and licensing concerns |
+ Trusting AI-reviewed PRs |
• The value of AI in understanding context and its limitations |
• A Twitter poll on whether an AI should review code, with opinions ranging from reviewing and providing feedback to using it as a secondary reviewer |
• Mention of Chrome plugin ideas and summarizing a PR (pull request) |
• Guest Anderson's experience and insights on the topic of AI and coding |
[0.00 --> 5.80] The answer is it depends, but I think it depends on your role on this pull request, right? |
[5.88 --> 11.92] So imagine that I maintain an open source and I'm taking something in from a person that's not from the repo. |
[12.18 --> 16.20] I would be extra careful, so perhaps I would try to run the code. |
[16.20 --> 26.70] Usually, I don't really test the code, but again, if it's something that I feel that's really critical and I want to be sure that's 100% working, I might test it. |
[30.00 --> 34.38] This episode is brought to you by Sourcegraph. |
[34.86 --> 39.30] Sourcegraph is universal code search to let you move fast, even in big code bases. |
[39.38 --> 46.54] Here's CTO and co-founder, Biong Lu, explaining how Sourcegraph helps you to get into that ideal state of flow in coding. |
[46.72 --> 51.70] The ideal state of software development is really being in that state of flow. |
[51.70 --> 62.04] It's that state where all the relevant context information that you need to build whatever feature or bug that you're focused on building or fixing at the moment, that's all readily available. |
[62.20 --> 67.58] Now, the question is, how do you get into that state where you don't know anything about the code necessarily that you're going to modify? |
[67.96 --> 70.24] That's where Sourcegraph comes in. |
[70.50 --> 73.60] And so what you do with Sourcegraph is you jump into Sourcegraph. |
[73.70 --> 77.04] It provides a single portal into that universal code. |
[77.04 --> 80.68] You search for the string literal, the pattern, whatever it is you're looking for. |
[80.80 --> 83.86] You dive right into the specific part of code that you want to understand. |
[84.24 --> 97.00] And then you have all these code navigation capabilities, jump to definition, find references that work across repository boundaries that work without having to clone the code to your local machine and set up and mess around with editor config and all that. |
[97.12 --> 102.46] Everything is just designed to be seamless and to aid in that task of, you know, code spelunking or source diving. |
[102.46 --> 110.64] And once you've acquired that understanding, then you can hop back in your editor, dive right back into that flow state of, hey, all information I need is readily accessible. |
[110.86 --> 115.32] Let me just focus on writing the code that influenced the feature or fixes the bug that I'm working on. |
[115.68 --> 117.82] All right. Learn more at Sourcegraph.com. |
[117.92 --> 125.94] And also check out their bi-monthly virtual series called DevToolTime covering all things DevTools at Sourcegraph.com slash DevToolTime. |
[132.46 --> 142.08] Let's do it. |
[142.74 --> 143.72] It's Go Time. |
[144.42 --> 149.56] Welcome to Go Time, your source for diverse discussions from all around the Go community. |
[150.08 --> 152.04] Subscribe to the pod if you haven't yet. |
[152.18 --> 154.86] Head to GoTime.fm for all the ways. |
[155.12 --> 157.56] And if you dig the show, please do tell your friends. |
[157.74 --> 158.50] That'd be pretty cool. |
[158.50 --> 164.04] Special thanks to our partners at Fastly for shipping all of our pods super fast to wherever you listen. |
[164.26 --> 165.98] Check them out at Fastly.com. |
[166.20 --> 167.96] And to our friends at Fly.io. |
[168.42 --> 170.54] Host your app servers close to your users. |
[170.76 --> 171.68] No ops required. |
[172.12 --> 173.42] Learn more at Fly.io. |
[173.74 --> 174.62] Okay, here we go. |
[176.10 --> 179.42] Good part of the day to everyone wherever you're joining from. |
[179.98 --> 181.36] And here's Angelica and I. |
[181.44 --> 183.78] We are back to talk about pull requests. |
[184.12 --> 184.86] Hi, Angelica. |
[184.90 --> 185.36] How are you doing? |
[186.20 --> 187.58] I'm very, very well. |
[187.58 --> 188.20] Thank you. |
[188.20 --> 194.26] I didn't think the PRs would take two episodes, but I'm surprised and excited that they will. |
[194.68 --> 197.94] As everything about pull requests always takes a bit longer than expected, huh? |
[198.48 --> 199.06] That's true. |
[200.32 --> 202.56] Today we are joined by Anderson. |
[202.98 --> 203.32] Hello. |
[203.60 --> 204.74] Hi, how are you doing, Anderson? |
[205.18 --> 206.26] I'm really, really good. |
[206.34 --> 207.68] I'm really happy to be here. |
[208.04 --> 208.58] Thank you. |
[208.86 --> 211.46] And you are joining us from the UK. |
[212.24 --> 212.76] Exactly. |
[213.26 --> 214.28] What are you doing in the UK? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.