There more things in a pull request other that just reviews. It can run a build pipeline and give feedback, provision test instances to run quick tests.
It can also be used to add context and have a conversation around the why's before merging. And yeah while it's not the main purpose we've caught a lot of bugs too just from the statically reviewing code.
I switched from Claude code to the GitHub copilot app recently. Since our repositories are hosted on GitHub I find the copilot app better integrated for the PR workflow with PR management available in the app. I don’t think I miss any of the features of Claude code I never thought I would make the switch but copilot upped the game.
Also it became very hard to convince management to keep both Claude code and GitHub Copilot enterprise licenses.
I am learning music. I used codex to create a native metronome app, a circle of fifths app, a practice journal app. I try to build a native app alternatives.
I have no plans of publishing them or making the open source, so it will not be a part of this metric. I believe others are doing this too.
I don’t think it’s bad on its own, but from my experience, the rollout can be messy and lock people out. Aadhaar in India had long registration queues, biometric issues, and banks making it mandatory. Even in the UK, the digital residency permit switch caused issues at border control.
It’s hard not to be overwhelmed by the Sagrada Família — it feels less like a building and more like a living organism stretching toward the sky. Makes Barcelona along all that it already offers a beautiful city to visit.
I also feel the tragedy behind its beauty. From what I've read, Gaudí dedicated later part of his life completely to it and he died poor and unrecognised, hit by a tram and mistaken for a beggar.
Not a fan of the new Safari design. I used to like it for its compact and minimalist look, but now the address bar and tab bar feel like they take up more space than they should.
In my experience, Page Objects sound neat in theory but end up as a leaky abstraction: they mix UI details with test logic, duplicate flows, and make even trivial UI changes ripple through dozens of files. What I’ve seen is indirection that hides test intent and bloats maintenance.
I also find them very developer-centric — testers get forced into upfront design work that doesn’t fit how they naturally test, and many struggle with it. I’ve had better results by expressing behavior directly and keeping UI concerns thin, instead of using a wrapper around page structure.
Part of this is on developers. Refactoring is fine, but too often it turns into yak-shaving and nothing ships. The approach usually works: refactor in small steps and tie it to a feature so it’s testable and adds value.
I’ve noticed that every time I open a browser to use the web version of an app, I get distracted and end up browsing unrelated stuff.
Switching to a standalone app helps me avoid that — fewer distractions, less wasted time. I’ve tried breaking the habit, but this is one reason I still prefer desktop version of the website.
Used trunk-based dev a lot. Not a fan. It sounds good on paper, but in practice, it gets messy fast and code quality is hard to maintain, especially when teams are remote.
What actually works is trunk-based deployments — keep main always deployable, and ship from there. Simple.
PRs, are underrated. They’re great for sharing context. You get inline comments, CI runs, you can test stuff in isolation by spinning up infra, and teammates actually see what’s changing.
Stacked diffs make juggling multiple PRs manageable. And yeah, PR reviews can slow you down, but honestly, I think that's a plus. Slowing down just enough to have another human look at the code pays off more often than not.
One thing I really appreciated during the peak years of working with XSLT was how much I learned about XPath. Once it clicks, it’s surprisingly intuitive and powerful. I don’t use XSLT much these days, but I still find myself using XPath occasionally. It’s one of those tools—once you understand it, it sticks with you.
I’ve had some moderate success with a couple of open-source projects, and I get where you’re coming from. Promotion is hard work, especially if you’re used to just building.
Here’s what worked for me:
Start with a solid project page – Focus on making your plugin polished easy to install and use via a project page. Good docs and instructions also drives search to your plugin organically.
Create useful content – Blog posts, guides, or even short articles that explain how and why you built the plugin something like behind the scenes. People read this stuff.
Use GitHub topics – Tag your repo well. People browse topics and trending pages. This is actually how one of our projects started getting noticed.
Submit to awesome lists – there are “awesome” lists related to IntelliJ plugins Java dev tools, AI tools send a PR to add your project. It’s a great way to get visibility among the right audience.
Be genuinely helpful in your niche – If your plugin helps with a common pain (e.g. repetitive Java boilerplate), hang out in relevant forums or threads (like here, Reddit, etc.). When you help someone, they’ll often check out your work.
See how it all goes and know when to move on, Good luck with your plugin.
Same here—I missed it the first time around and found it pretty weird when I finally watched it.
But on a recent trip to the Lake District, we ended up visiting a bunch of the filming spots, including the infamous telephone box in Bampton (still around and in good condition).
That kind of changed how I saw the movie—it started to feel more like a bunch of odd little vignettes, each with its own strange charm. My partner and her family are big fans and talk about it all the time, so it’s slowly grown on me. Definitely not a “one sitting” kind of film.
It can also be used to add context and have a conversation around the why's before merging. And yeah while it's not the main purpose we've caught a lot of bugs too just from the statically reviewing code.