"Education isn't something you can finish"
-- Isaac Asimov
"Education isn't something you can finish"
-- Isaac Asimov
That's coming untouched from an Anycubic Mega-S.
What do you call it? :)
That said, if you're still holding back because of the initial investment, the Ender 3 is an absolute steal for ~$150 to $170!
Decent value for money mostly:
It has a rather sturdy "unibody" frame and can be assembled within minutes. Separate stepper motor and endstop for each Z-axis. The ultrabase is awesome to print on, I never had to use glue or tamper with bed adhesion otherwise. Firmware is open-source and can be replaced. Comes with a spool of filament.
The Ender 3 certainly rivals it in value for money, but if you can afford to pay a little extra, the Mega S seems to be the better package.
Thanks for ruining my appetite π
Opened a new pack of toast and they all got a big hole in the middle. That's... rather inconvenient.
Is that the successor to freshmeat.net? Good lord, those memories.
I did!
Yes, I do, even though I really think common sense applies here. It's fine to have different workflows and to enforce them. However in that case what really irks me is him just asking me to do more work to literally achieve the exact same result in the end.
Btw, sent you a pull request for rmw π
Mighty groot-looking!
Yes, I went the extra mile because I believe it's less time consuming and easier to review them, once they're split up in logical pieces. That's common practice for a good reason.
He's acting out of spite here, asking me to do more work to literally get to the exact same result eventually. To teach me a lesson? Silly.
If he doesn't care about these projects anymore, that's fine. Just say that and I'll be understanding. Just don't behave like a condescending dick.
I mean, he doesn't owe me anything. It's his right to ignore this PR, his right to disagree with this PR and his right to close this PR.
However it becomes rather condescending if you're asking your contributors to jump through hoops to get their changes merged. He already had reviewed them and they were reasonably partitioned. It may not be his style of workflow, but then just say "thank you" and "I'd prefer it some other way next time".
This is public, I'm not exposing anything.
Being a maintainer of several open source projects myself, I'm well aware of that. I'm not trying to tell him how to run his projects, I'm merely explaining why I did what I did. But I find it rather condescending and disrespectful asking me to jump through hoops to get my changes accepted. It would have been just as much work for him to click "Merge" instead of "Close" now.
For future pull requests I would have been happy to respect his workflow preference.
Unsolicited help? We're talking about open source projects, ffs. If you don't like maintaining open-source projects, don't maintain open-source projects.
It's fine to tell me about his preference for future pull requests, but making me jump through hoops after having reviewed them already... just childish & stubborn π
...and why is it that by the time I'm back at my machine, I have already forgotten the solution again π
I didn't split them up completely arbitrarily. There was one PR for all typo fixes, one for ineffectual assignments and one for unnecessary conversions. That's rather reasonable imo, and should actually make it a lot easier and less time consuming to review.
I don't think it comes down to laziness. Clicking "Close" is just as much work as clicking "Merge" π
I'm not really interested in the debate either, I'm merely explaining why I did what I did.
He already reviewed them and it would have been just as much work for him to click "Merge". I would have remembered his preference for the next time and it's all good.
Instead he decides to make me jump through hoops to teach me a lesson. That's just childish.
Jonkman Microblog is a social network, courtesy of SOBAC Microcomputer Services. It runs on GNU social, version 1.2.0-beta5, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.