"Push-pull-rebase bottleneck: if you rebase and push and someone beats you to it, you have to pull, rebase, and try again. This gets worse as commit rate increases and people do needless legwork. Facebook has moved to server-side rebasing on push to mostly eliminate this pain point. (This is part of a still-experimental feature in Mercurial, which should hopefully lose its experimental flag soon.)"
What if there are merge conflicts?
I don't know about Mercurial, but in Git there are tons of cases where rebasing cannot happen automatically.
The process is optimistic. You submit your commit and it runs async in the background with success or failure sent to you via email and SMS. You still run into merge conflicts, especially if you are touching a frequently tweaked bit of core, but not having to babysit the process is almost always a win.
I have always wondered why nearly every time I enter a convenience store in Japan sure enough there are 2-5 people standing there reading magazines for seemingly a really long time. I always wondered why don't they just buy it and at read it at home?
The problem I see with using docker for development is, you still need different rails environments(development, test, etc.), the dockerfiles I've been making are for production, and I'm not sure if they would work in the other environments. Also you have to use tons of commands (rake, rspec, migrate, etc) which at this point requires entering the container, which you really shouldn't have to do unless there is a problem with the container itself.
One thing to note is that you can have multiple fig.yml files. So, you could set slightly different configuration parameters (perhaps use `environment` etc.) for different places you are using fig using the `-f` option to specify a different fig.yml.
I don't think entering a container is bad for development, in fact it's a frequent pattern (to run things like you describe rake etc.). With the release of docker exec this becomes easier too. I think of it kind of like bind-mounting a directory in the container to do code editing without having to rebuild- as long as you are using ADD for every stage afterwards that should be fully automated (QA, test, production) then you are in the clear.
KiwiIRC uses this protocol apparently. I asked the author about it and they said they have worked out special arrangements with some networks to implement it, and accept connections exclusively from Kiwi, I presume? After all, a password is required according to this spec:
I'm kind of wondering how sustainable a pay for screencasts business is. A couple people seem to have burned out on it (railscasts, Gary Bernhardt). I'm not sure if its the expectation of getting something new up every week or two weeks is too stressful or they just run out of material. Is it possible to keep it going without getting sick of it or running out of things to talk about?
There exist many successful screencasts businesses. I think the main problem with "subscribe monthly for unlimited access and new screencasts every month" is the "new screencasts every month" bit. That is an issue with the business/charging model, not with publishing screencasts for money.
There's no reason why somebody with a back catalog of 200 episodes who doesn't have desire/bandwidth to record more can't sell access to the back catalog and fairly easily get to $X00,000 per year.
There is probably some merit in the season model that American television takes. "I'm going to release 12/18/24/whatever episodes over the next six/eight/twelve months" is probably more sustainable than a weekly screencast pledge. Gives the author some time off to recharge, and (perhaps more importantly) some time for technology to evolve.
Since I have a background as a poker player one of the coaching sites (deucescracked) followed a season model whereas the others (cardrunners, leggopoker and later bluefire) were more similar to "release videos on a somewhat set schedule but not too strict"
It might actually be worthwhile comparing those sites to subscription based techcasts since both are in the business of selling expert knowledge.
One major difference I see is that the selling point of poker sites is that the players are successful so there might be value in a screencast site that focuses more on "rockstar developers" etc.