Engineer on @googlechrome. Involved in CSS and W3C standards. Previously @mozilla, @w3ctag. Mastodon: @dbaron@w3c.social

Rockville, Maryland, USA
Joined March 2008
Filter
Exclude
Time range
-
Near
I think it's been at least a month or so since Twitter switched me from "Latest Tweets" to "Home". Used to be every few days. It's good when they fix things that people are complaining about.
1
3
Replying to @samth @JakeAnbinder
Yeah, lounges can certainly make an airport pretty different. United status won't get me in to an Air France lounge. But even the nice-ish Lufthansa lounge doesn't make me like FRA. Best lounges I've been in were in East Asia catering mostly to locals (e.g., TSA, WUH).
My major European hub rankings are probably MUC > AMS > LHR > FRA > CDG.
1
I'm in Tokyo for a week before TPAC, so no. Only the return trip involves an airport transfer.
1
And I didn't even say anything about CDG Terminals 1 or 3, which are even worse.
1
Replying to @samth @JakeAnbinder
My recent LHR experiences in both T5 and the Queens Terminal were pleasant and efficient. CDG has good airport hotels & trains, but transferring between 2E and 2F is awful, the lines for anything in 2E are awful, there's barely any water behind security in M, & food in M is bad.
1
1
I've never taken a domestic flight involving HND. I'll do a domestic arrival there in September and then transfer to International, though (FUK-HND-SFO).
2
2
Here are photos of TSA's interior from 2013 (the day I was on the first commercial 787 takeoff in Taiwan). Definitely low ceilings. Nice airport. Though its subway line is kinda annoying.
1
2
Also, I think TXL is awful, except for the little upstairs waiting areas that are accessible from *some* gates.
1
2
Are you counting TXL as low ceilings or high? I think it's got medium ceilings... :-/
2
1
OK, a good airport with low ceilings: TSA (Taipei Songshan Airport)
1
2
Replying to @JakeAnbinder
Counterpoint: CDG is a bad airport with high ceilings. (I'm struggling to think of a good airport with low ceilings, though.)
3
5
Seems valuable to have a more direct Berlin-Paris route than that. (Maybe Berlin-London too?)
Replying to @0xmpe
If that's the best way, then why does git's interactive rebase explicitly tell you to use 'git commit --amend'? (Advice I've gotten from others says that in recent git versions the best way is just to 'git add' and 'git rebase --continue', and it will implicitly amend.)
1
Replying to @Rekalty @neiltyson
We're not doing anything close to what we should be to prevent car accidents, though. In California we should legalize speed cameras and allow cities to set speed limits based on safety rather than the 85th percentile rule. We should also enforce other traffic laws more.
Replying to @agi_novanta @snorp
Though it feels like needing to use commands that aren't in git help (without -a) to not lose work is a serious UX failure.
1
1
Replying to @sayrer
I guess I don't understand what "do this with merges" means. If I have a sequence of 4 patches where patch 2 depends on patch 1 (and would conflict if not on top of it), same for 3 depending on 2, etc., and I want to modify patch 1, what are you suggesting I merge?
1
Replying to @davidbaron @sayrer
Note that patch #1 in that series is large-ish, but it's really simple to review because it's all trivial changes, all doing the same thing. If it were mixed into a bunch of other things it would be a lot harder to review than when separated out.
1
Replying to @davidbaron @sayrer
So I might write a series of six patches (probably compiling each one) before doing any testing. Then I hit a test failure and realize it's a bug in patch #2. This is before posting anything for code review. So I want the fix merged into patch #2. rebase -i.
1
1
Replying to @davidbaron @sayrer
A relatively simple example is hg.mozilla.org/integration/a… . This was easier to code review as four separate patches than one. (#4 depends on #3 and #1. #3 depends on #2.) With more complex changes, the value goes up.
1