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!


Log in to reply
 

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