Better to revert than lose a community that is invested in your ecosystem that starts looking elsewhere. I congratulate the team in acknowledging and doing the right thing. As a developer myself, I know it is a painful thing to do but important to listen to the community.
A bunch of features that made it to beta turned out not to be in a state that could be made satisfactory for release time and so was reverted.
That seems to me to be the right thing to do. Unfortunate, but the right thing to do.
ā[something] will continue until morale improvesā is usually a sacastic dig at tone deaf and incompetent leadership (e.g, āfiring will continue until morale improvesā)
Did someone not understand what went in? Might someone have offloaded their thinking to some external tool? Did people stop caring? Did someone not plan or design a feature in full? Were the timelines unrealistic? Maybe with so many reverts timelines should be revised?
The blog post mentions rising standards of quality enabled by AI-assisted code review, and that reverted code predates the era of AI. Even very competently managed codebases are not above mistakes, especially when held to as high of a standard as this.
Iāve noticed the GitHub copilot reviews have gone from mostly nitpicks to very complicated issues that are hard to even understand or validate. Some of these are incorrect but some of them are actual findings of issues that simply would have gone unaddressed previously.
So a lot of this increase in bug reports lately is simply that we are more able to find issues which would previously have been shipped and probably wouldnāt have even been noticed by users for a long time. The minimum bar for software quality is going up, there's no excuse to ship software which contains bugs that could be detected by an LLM.
Take any codebase you built in the pre-AI era and run it through AI review. I guarantee, no matter how smart you are or how diligently you write tests, you will be absolutely gobsmacked by the findings. Turns out we haven't been writing perfect software all this time and we have some catching up to do.
It's a play on "the beatings will continue until morale improves". You obviously can't just beat morale into people, and, knowing that, the audience should understand improvements to a bad situation will not be forthcoming. It's often used for dramatic effect as dark/silly humor when something bad happens.
Yes, not only is there always improvements to existing functionality possible due to changes in improvements in general software engineering and mathematical methods beyond it or supporting new hardware features.
Generally, software engineering like other industries is evolving and there is need for different facilities. Consider graph and vector databases featuring, as well as json columns as examples of things you that are relatively recently in common use.
Better to revert than lose a community that is invested in your ecosystem that starts looking elsewhere. I congratulate the team in acknowledging and doing the right thing. As a developer myself, I know it is a painful thing to do but important to listen to the community.
Iām not sure I like the headline.
A bunch of features that made it to beta turned out not to be in a state that could be made satisfactory for release time and so was reverted.
That seems to me to be the right thing to do. Unfortunate, but the right thing to do.
ā[something] will continue until morale improvesā is usually a sacastic dig at tone deaf and incompetent leadership (e.g, āfiring will continue until morale improvesā)
I donāt think that is fair to say here.
Reverts kind of suck when it's your feature getting reverted, no doubt. But for something as foundational as Postgres, the more reverts the better...
But why were they reverted?
Did someone not understand what went in? Might someone have offloaded their thinking to some external tool? Did people stop caring? Did someone not plan or design a feature in full? Were the timelines unrealistic? Maybe with so many reverts timelines should be revised?
I wonder
The blog post mentions rising standards of quality enabled by AI-assisted code review, and that reverted code predates the era of AI. Even very competently managed codebases are not above mistakes, especially when held to as high of a standard as this.
Iāve noticed the GitHub copilot reviews have gone from mostly nitpicks to very complicated issues that are hard to even understand or validate. Some of these are incorrect but some of them are actual findings of issues that simply would have gone unaddressed previously.
So a lot of this increase in bug reports lately is simply that we are more able to find issues which would previously have been shipped and probably wouldnāt have even been noticed by users for a long time. The minimum bar for software quality is going up, there's no excuse to ship software which contains bugs that could be detected by an LLM.
Take any codebase you built in the pre-AI era and run it through AI review. I guarantee, no matter how smart you are or how diligently you write tests, you will be absolutely gobsmacked by the findings. Turns out we haven't been writing perfect software all this time and we have some catching up to do.
Well I have a document for you to read on this very question!
I donāt get the meaning of the article subject.
It's a play on "the beatings will continue until morale improves". You obviously can't just beat morale into people, and, knowing that, the audience should understand improvements to a bad situation will not be forthcoming. It's often used for dramatic effect as dark/silly humor when something bad happens.
What, the title? "Until morale improves" is ineptly chosen, because it seems self-deprecating: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/07/15/morale/
Or if not the title, the general context is this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50119991
It is a play on the old joke āThe beatings will continue until morale approves.ā
> as far as I can tell, this situation is not due to āvibe codingā. This code was written well before that was a possibility.
Since people refuse to read things on HN, I might as well bubble up this particular bullet point.
This is a strong endorsement of postgres; it shows they take quality control seriously.
is it really necessary to keep using new version of postgres and to keep developing them? is it not done at this point?
Yes, not only is there always improvements to existing functionality possible due to changes in improvements in general software engineering and mathematical methods beyond it or supporting new hardware features.
Generally, software engineering like other industries is evolving and there is need for different facilities. Consider graph and vector databases featuring, as well as json columns as examples of things you that are relatively recently in common use.
Yes. There's always room for improvement.