Atlassian Rebrands


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @raceprouk said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    We’ve built this belief around teamwork into our logos, focusing on the specific benefits we want our customers to feel when teamwork is at its best. And I’m proud of the end result. Like us, you may notice important symbolism around teams in the new Atlassian logo – two people high-fiving, a mountain ready for teams to scale, or even the letter A formed from two pillars reinforcing each other.

    And for the curious: the earliest version of the Atlassian logo, which I “created” in 2002, was inspired by the sky-holding Greek God Atlas, and the incredible example of legendary service and support that represents. While legendary service is still a core pillar at Atlassian, we’ve grown to embody broader and bigger ideas around teamwork and team potential.

    I’m excited about our new logo for the same reason I appreciate our old one: it’s friendly, human, and reflects our genuine personality.

    0_1505231786895_cd2f3bf1-3ec0-46b5-aae5-a1cec9aaafa6-image.png


    Swearing in your own press release.

    Classy.

    Maybe they just wanted to be sure they weren't using trendy words?

    Edit: :hanzo: by @Greybeard ...


  • Notification Spam Recipient

    @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    @sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    I don't know. Ask the idiot who wrote the build script. Or have you never had to work in nonsensical environments?

    I guess I didn't realize you were a little baby infant that is incapable of fixing problems when you come across them.

    I guess cry out for mommy, she'll make it all better.

    What did mommy say about not being allowed to push arbitrary branches to the central server? Was she able to convince you that it's all git's fault that it didn't bend backwards to work around your entirely man-made restriction?

    Did she blame it on git developers being linux users who DIDN"T DO USER TESTING and only implemented silly features practically nobody needs?

    Or perhaps she blamed it on git developers being linux users who have no clue about REAL USERS and features people ACTUALLY need, however esoteric they may be



  • @sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    If you've got stuff in the project directory that you don't want committed, perhaps?

    @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    But also not in the ignore file? What would that be? Help my imagination.

    While writing method RealignFroblgarbls() you find and fix a bug on the ShaveWhizzleBombs() method of the same class. You want to commit the fix of ShaveWhizzleBombs() without committing the unfinished RealignFroblgarbls() method. These are on the same file, mind you.


    @sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    And actually, I pull all the time without intending to push.

    @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Why?

    So that if you ever share code with me (that won't ever happen, I know), I can pull from you without you having my code pushed to your face whether you want it or not. No offense, but... duh!

    Maybe I want to pull important bug fixes to my code without pushing still-broken code. Maybe I have a customized fork that won't ever be merged into that particular repository. I see many reasons.

    I'm surprised you've never bumped into these situations, frankly.


    @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    If you ask people how to use Git they jump directly to "directed acyclic graph". That's not an abstraction, that's some egg-head math term describing exactly how it's implemented.

    • Source control contains snapshots of your working directory.
    • Every single snapshot has typically one, possible more, parent snapshots from which it is based. Except for the root empty snapshot, natch.
    • There are no cycles in this hierarchy. A snapshot can't have been written based on itself, dufus! But there can be crosstalk between branches.

    OMG, this is such a complex, leaky, full-of-math abstraction.



  • @zecc said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Source control contains snapshots of your working directory.

    Two instances of jargon.

    @zecc said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Every single snapshot has typically one, possible more, parent snapshots from which it is based. Except for the root empty snapshot, natch.

    Jargon, jargon, jargon.

    @zecc said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    There are no cycles in this hierarchy. A snapshot can't have been written based on itself, dufus! But there can be crosstalk between branches.

    Jargon, scary-looking math jargon, insult, jargon, jargon.

    @zecc said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    OMG, this is such a complex, leaky, full-of-math abstraction.

    You seem to be having a lot of trouble explaining it.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Two instances of jargon.

    :headdesk:

    @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    You seem to be having a lot of trouble explaining it.

    I think the communication problem was not on his end.



  • @blakeyrat That's like complaining that cars are a leaky abstraction because you have to put gas (jargon) or electricity (jargon) into them. What is an example of an abstraction with no leaks?



  • @lb_ said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    What is an example of an abstraction with no leaks?

    Fuck you, give me money.



  • @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    You seem to be having a lot of trouble explaining it.

    "Falling into deaf ears" is scary jargon.



  • @zecc said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    You seem to be having a lot of trouble explaining it.

    "Falling into deaf ears" is scary jargon.

    :pendant: ONTO deaf ears. Unless you're talking about those mind-control bugs from Star Trek II. Ugh.



  • @benjamin-hall said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    @zecc said in Atlassian Rebrands:
    :pendant: ONTO deaf ears. Unless you're talking about those mind-control bugs from Star Trek II. Ugh.

    It was a typo, not an ESL error (this time).



  • @zecc I just wanted to :pendant: . And mention mind control bugs. Because I'm evil.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @benjamin-hall said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    @zecc I just wanted to :pendant: . And mention mind control bugs. Because I'm evil.

    Yeerks aren't real!


    Filed under: Join The Sharing!


  • BINNED

    @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    If you ask people how to use Git they jump directly to "directed acyclic graph".

    If you're lucky. More often they start talking about a DAG and expect you to know what it stands for



  • @tsaukpaetra said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Yeerks aren't real!

    0_1505916590822_pledge.jpg



  • @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    @zecc said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Source control contains snapshots of your working directory.

    Two instances of jargon.

    Wait, you are complaining about 'snapshot' being jargon? And the other one is... what? 'Source control'? 'Working directory'?

    Seriously?

    I am confused here. I am assuming that you aren't complaining that you don't understand it, but I am not sure who you expect would have trouble understanding it in the context with which it is used.

    See, that's sort of the important point here. These revision control tools are meant to be used by programmers - people whose job is, in part, to understand these sorts of intricacies. Yes, it would present a problem for casual programmers, and that's unfortunate, but in this particular time and place they aren't the people it is meant for.

    Current revision control tools only apply to 'source control'. This is a shitty thing, and I personally think we need systems that keep a record of the history of all documents, as transparently as possible, but git is sure as fuck not the tool for that.

    Neither is SVN. Neither is CVS. Neither is Team Fortress Sparkly-vampire-edition. All of these are tools for managing programming tasks involving multiple programmers. It doesn't matter if Grandma gets lost trying to understand it, because it isn't for her.

    Maybe it should be , but right now, no one has a revision control system that is suitable for casual users. I am sure that we could just as easily find 'impenetrable jargon' in the documentation for your beloved TFS that are things any experienced programmer would twig to in a moment despite having a specialized meaning in this context.



  • @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Current revision control tools only apply to 'source control'. This is a shitty thing, and I personally think we need systems that keep a record of the history of all documents, as transparently as possible, but git is sure as fuck not the tool for that.

    Perforce? SharePo-PFFF AHAHAHA I can't finish that word.



  • @jazzyjosh OK, good point. However, those are the exception rather the rule.

    Also, while they do apply to a lot more types of documents, yu will notice that they are still somewhat specialized. AFAICT, they are not designed for the specific needs of source code revision control. They could be used for it, but they wouldn't be well suited to it.

    Mind you, git isn't well suited for anything. I have to give Blakey that much. But it is serviceable within its particular specialized role.

    I still say these sort of things need to be baked into the document system at the data storage level to do them right. And that's just not going to happen with existing file systems, regardless of platform.

    But in the end, Word of Blakey is complaining about git not because he dislikes git (though he does, and not without reason), but because he is opposed to FOSS on principle (while at the same time being in favor of casual programming - contradiction much?), and git (or rather, GitHub) is a tool that facilitates people doing FOSS without any careful thought or oversight.

    Or maybe because he likes trolling. Or, well, why not both?



  • @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Wait, you are complaining about 'snapshot' being jargon? And the other one is... what? 'Source control'? 'Working directory'?

    All three of those things are jargon.

    @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    These revision control tools are meant to be used by programmers

    But why? Millions of users could benefit from having revision control tools, if they were accessible to them. Look up how law firms, or politicians do revision control sometime.

    @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Yes, it would present a problem for casual programmers, and that's unfortunate, but in this particular time and place they aren't the people it is meant for.

    I fundamentally disagree that this should be normal and accepted.

    @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    This is a shitty thing, and I personally think we need systems that keep a record of the history of all documents, as transparently as possible, but git is sure as fuck not the tool for that.

    No shit. And yet we're all fucking using it.

    @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Neither is SVN. Neither is CVS. Neither is Team Fortress Sparkly-vampire-edition. All of these are tools for managing programming tasks involving multiple programmers. It doesn't matter if Grandma gets lost trying to understand it, because it isn't for her.

    But why not?

    @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Maybe it should be , but right now, no one has a revision control system that is suitable for casual users.

    Microsoft Word implements a pretty good one. I'm not joking.

    @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    your beloved TFS

    1. TFS doesn't exist anymore, it's now VSTS or whatever the fuck they call it.
    2. I don't love TFS. I just think it's better than Git. And I'm upset that Git, which is newer than TFS, is also worse than TFS because I have this basic concept in my head that our industry should move forward when creating new products and not backwards, but silly me.

    @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    But in the end, Word of Blakey is complaining about git not because he dislikes git (though he does, and not without reason), but because he is opposed to FOSS on principle

    That's not true.

    I have no problem with software being free or open source. Like, do you think I suddenly started hating C# once they open-sourced the implementation of it? That doesn't even slightly make sense.

    I have a big problem with "FOSS as a development methodology". You know, following all those moronic bits of wrong stupid advice like:

    • Release early, release often
    • Do one thing and do it well
    • etc.

    This is another language problem where a term is overloaded to mean multiple things and it confuses everybody. Also I'm kind of getting sick of explaining this over and over.

    The reason I hate C#'s direction now isn't because the code is open, but because it's adopted the retarded FOSS development methodology. For example, .NET Core was "released early" even though it doesn't support super-basic functionality like System.Drawing. Everyone needs System.Drawing. Even your dead-simple forum software needs to be able to crop PNGs. Why the fuck was it released without that? Why the fuck does it still not have it a year later? What the fuck are they even doing?

    If C# had been made open source, but then continued to be developed in the careful and well-thought-out manner that it had been developed in the .NET 2.x era, I'd have zero complaints. But that's not what's happening, is it.

    @scholrlea said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    (while at the same time being in favor of casual programming - contradiction much?)

    Casual programming has always been easier in proprietary products. HyperCard, FileMaker, RealBasic, VisualBasic-- all proprietary. (I think RealBasic might be open source now, but.)



  • @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    The reason I hate C#'s direction now isn't because the code is open, but because it's adopted the retarded FOSS development methodology. For example, .NET Core was "released early" even though it doesn't support super-basic functionality like System.Drawing. Everyone needs System.Drawing. Even your dead-simple forum software needs to be able to crop PNGs. Why the fuck was it released without that? Why the fuck does it still not have it a year later? What the fuck are they even doing?

    Real simple answer to that. System.Drawing is a bunch of managed wrappers around GDI, which is part of MSVC and therefore not something that's cross-platform. This is like complaining that System.Windows.Forms wasn't ported either. What would have been an actual bad thing would be releasing System.Drawing with only half the functionality.



  • @pie_flavor said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Real simple answer to that. System.Drawing is a bunch of managed wrappers around GDI, which is part of MSVC and therefore not something that's cross-platform.

    That doesn't make it impossible to make a compatible new version using something else. Not even very difficult, since the also-open-source Mono has one.

    You're just making excuses of the type: "it's slightly difficult, therefore we should never do it." Lazy fucker.

    @pie_flavor said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    This is like complaining that System.Windows.Forms wasn't ported either. What would have been an actual bad thing would be releasing System.Drawing with only half the functionality.

    Windows.Forms explicitly says it only applies to windows in the name.

    System.Drawing expliticly says it's supposed to be available in all .NET runtimes in the name.

    So you're comparing apples and oranges. Again: stop making excuses for shitty developers writing shitty software. Demand better.



  • @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    @pie_flavor said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    This is like complaining that System.Windows.Forms wasn't ported either. What would have been an actual bad thing would be releasing System.Drawing with only half the functionality.

    Windows.Forms explicitly says it only applies to windows in the name.

    System.Drawing expliticly says it's supposed to be available in all .NET runtimes in the name.

    So you're comparing apples and oranges. Again: stop making excuses for shitty developers writing shitty software. Demand better.

    The name of a namespace not including 'Windows' does not 'explicitly say it's supposed to be available in all .NET runtimes'. The description, in the documentation, explicitly says it provides managed access to GDI+.


  • SockDev

    @pie_flavor said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    The description, in the documentation, explicitly says it provides managed access to GDI+ when implemented on a Windows system.

    FTFY



  • @raceprouk said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    @pie_flavor said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    The description, in the documentation, explicitly says it provides managed access to GDI+ when implemented on a Windows system.

    FTFY

    Oh, totally. Even the onebox says different.

    Also, looks like they did exactly what I said would be a worse idea - it's available, partially, on .NET Core 2.0. In fact they had it in .NET Core 1.0.


  • SockDev

    @pie_flavor said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Oh, totally. Even the onebox says different.

    Tip: When trying to prove a point, don't link to evidence that proves you're talking shite:
    0_1505929637015_2a433a9f-0175-43e1-8de3-9f5513de693b-image.png
    That's Windows-only, whereas .NET Core is multiplatform.



  • @pie_flavor said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    The description, in the documentation, explicitly says it provides managed access to GDI+.

    Right but it shouldn't because that's implementation-detail. This is an extremely basic concept in software development, and it's a shame so many people (including at least one documentation writer at Microsoft) don't understand it.

    What it provides is a library for dealing with image files and formats, and drawing tools for same.

    Whether it's implemented using GDI+, or ... whatever shitty library you use in Linux, or via Indian loom punch cards and a webcam is implementation-detail. We don't care, and shouldn't care, as long as it works.

    If it were meant to be specific to Windows, it'd be called Windows.Drawing. It's not, so it's not. And like I said, the Mono version of same:

    1. Exists, and
    2. Is named System.Drawing and not, for example, Mono.Drawing.


  • @raceprouk said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    @pie_flavor said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    Oh, totally. Even the onebox says different.

    Tip: When trying to prove a point, don't link to evidence that proves you're talking shite:
    0_1505929637015_2a433a9f-0175-43e1-8de3-9f5513de693b-image.png
    That's Windows-only, whereas .NET Core is multiplatform.

    Oh. Excuse me.

    There.


  • SockDev

    @pie_flavor Huh… Guess they must have ported GDI+ to Linux and macOS, at least partially.


  • And then the murders began.

    @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    TFS doesn't exist anymore, it's now VSTS or whatever the fuck they call it.

    TFS still exists - VSTS is just an online instance of it. (TFS : VSTS :: Git : GitHub.)



  • @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    All three of those things are jargon.

    So...what? You would rather replace each instance with a 20 word (or whatever) description of what it's doing instead of the concise terminology? What purpose would that serve? It's just hostile to anyone trying to read it. Also, you'd look at those descriptions and claim that they were full of jargon.

    And then the murder happened.



  • @boomzilla Why would I ever respond to you Boomzilla since whatever I type you're going to claim I said something entirely different (like I was "putting words in your mouth") and start criticizing me for your own imagination.

    Go away.



  • @blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    @boomzilla Why would I ever respond to you Boomzilla since whatever I type you're going to claim I said something entirely different (like I was "putting words in your mouth") and start criticizing me for your own imagination.

    This is a more elaborate blakey is boomzilla's alt than we're used to seeing. See, because that's what you do. And then you accuse me of it, which is always kind of amusing in a moronic way.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @boomzilla said in Atlassian Rebrands:

    So...what? You would rather replace each instance with a 20 word (or whatever) description of what it's doing instead of the concise terminology? What purpose would that serve? It's just hostile to anyone trying to read it. Also, you'd look at those descriptions and claim that they were full of jargon.

    Please be careful when handling the aperture science thing we don't know what it does device.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.