To be clear I’m not suggesting that it being addictive is a good thing, just that it’s real.

The deep refactoring thing is amazing eh.

That does not make me feel any better :)

The other day we had to spend 2-3 hours going though some robot-authored tests that had snuck into our main branch and mostly just validated their own setup and were entirely useless. Worse than useless in fact due to degrading trust, carry cost, signal/noise ratio etc.

Two more words: test theatre

Good for you for taking a stand Andre!

I’m heading to the UK for a week of meetings for @inkandswitch.com

We’ll be hosting a social on Sat Aug 16th at the @tldraw.com offices - come join!

I’ll have one free day on the 17th before I head to NYC

My teen will be driving soon, I’m curious why you recommend it for them particularly?

So the push and approve steps happen on the same machine? How do you know it was different people?

On reflection branch-based tests is one of those things you learn to lean on when you get used to PRs. Stockholm syndrome.

I can imagine weaning people off with a prefix on the branch name for these auto-approve branches that disables the tests.

Love it. You presumably end up running CI twice on the commit? Once on the branch and again on main? Or does GitHub not check it again if you rebase merge? I forget.

Tailscale does this and we released all our SOC2 policies for free so you can copy them if you like. Enjoy! tailscale.com/security-pol...

Also check out our github to-be-reviewed bot: you can push urgent unreviewed commits in an emergency and still review them later in a compliant way.

@tdpauw.bsky.social has a post about this: thinkinglabs.io/articles/202...

Hit me up!