Comments by "Andrea Laforgia" (@andrealaforgia) on "ThePrimeTime" channel.

@MrAlexander1997 there is absolutely no reason why master should be *protected*. This obsession about protecting master is foolish. Master needs to be releasable, but it's absolutely okay to break master from time to time, as long as we can quickly fix it (it's the principle of the Andon cord from Lean). Establishing convoluted workflows just for the sake of protecting master can lead to all sort of inefficiencies.
3
@NukeCloudstalker It's not a problem of low IQ nor being stupid. Merging trunk frequently into the feature branches does not solve any problem. If developer A and B create their own branches and work on them for days, never merging work into trunk, merging trunk into their respective branches does not add any value. And if they do merge frequently into trunk, then what's the point of using long-lived feature branches in the first place? It's only added complexity: go straight into trunk. Yes, you can have the same level of safeguarding and tests that prevents crap from going into production. Integration is continuous, at that point, and the final (single) artefact is continuously validated.
2
@NukeCloudstalker >feature flags has little to do with CI Feature flags are a tool that can come really handy when doing trunk-based development (a prerequisite for Continuous Integration), but there are ways to avoid them. They are not necessarily a pre-requisite for CI. Saying, however, "they have little to do with CI" is wrong. >there's never been proper tests of whether any of the supposed benefits CI should deliver, are actually delivered You do understand that CI is a very old idea and companies have been implementing it for decades, right? Have you ever worked in a non-CI environment? If you have, then you know why and how CI has improved things. >you were the one throwing around that word like an insult I think you are killing your own arguments by appealing to idiocy or low IQ. It's the best way to lose any credibility.
2
I agree that the example at 46:12 is not great, but I don’t think it can be qualified a strawman argument. That chunk of minified code that Dave showed can be interpreted as just an exaggeration of a concept, similarly to a meme. The point is actually making relates to the code shown at 10:10, where most people seemed to agree that the code at the top was better than the one at the bottom.
1
6:58 I could watch it all day
1
[8:33] False dilemma fallacy: it is not either you are abrasive and insult people or take them by the hand, walk on eggs and soft-talk to them. We can still be honest, firm and direct in our feedback, at the same time keeping things respectful and constructive. Communication between humans is complicated and it takes one iota of brutality to destroy a perfectly valid message. Not recognising that and going straight with an "I don't care", is not a sign of intelligence.
1