GH auto-rebase complaint

GitHub, you serve us well, but please allow me a tiny complaint about the rebase flow.

First, some context.

In a trunk-based, linear history rebase development workflow (aka tl;dr), we do primarily smallish PRs. The project has two active developers, and we consistently accomplish a handful of PRs daily. The review takes priority. Usually, an initial review is ready, and related fixes are implemented in less than an hour. Unfortunately, our CI is slow, and we typically don't have its status available once the human part of the review is complete.

GH has added the auto-merge (or auto-rebase) feature. It presumably works best in merge flows and is only nearly as good for the linear history rebase workflow. Unfortunately, we can't set multiple PRs to auto-rebase and expect GitHub to handle it automagically. Our branch protection rules require that source branches must be up-to-date before rebasing to main. Once any PR is rebased, the following ones are not up to date with the target branch.

This is roughly what happens currently when GitHub rebases a PR.

We recently wrote a script that polls the PRs, automatically updates the oldest set to be rebased and performs the rebase once CI passes.

We would love to get rid of it, so we are eagerly waiting for a feature where we can set multiple branches to auto-rebase in order and automatically keep them up to date.

This is what I would like GitHub to do once I first set PR #1 to auto-rebase, followed by #2.

Comments

RocksDB data recovery

I recently needed to do some maintenance on a RocksDB key-value store. The task was simple enough, just delete some keys as the db served as a cache and did not contain any permanent data. I used the RocksDB cli administration tool ldb to erase the keys. After running a key scan with it, I got this error Failed: Corruption: Snappy not supported or corrupted Snappy compressed block contents So a damaged database. Fortunately, there's a tool to fix it, and after running it, I had access to the db via the admin tool. All the data was lost though. Adding and removing keys worked fine but all the old keys were gone. It turned out that the corrupted data was all the data there was. The recovery tool made a backup folder, and I recovered the data by taking the files from the backup folder and manually changing the CURRENT file to point to the old MANIFEST file which is apparently how RocksDB knows which sst (table) files to use. I could not access the data with the admin tool, ...

I'm not a passionate developer

A family friend of mine is an airlane pilot. A dream job for most, right? As a child, I certainly thought so. Now that I can have grown-up talks with him, I have discovered a more accurate description of his profession. He says that the truth about the job is that it is boring. To me, that is not that surprising. Airplanes are cool and all, but when you are in the middle of the Atlantic sitting next to the colleague you have been talking to past five years, how stimulating can that be? When he says the job is boring, it is not a bad kind of boring. It is a very specific boring. The "boring" you would want as a passenger. Uneventful. Yet, he loves his job. According to him, an experienced pilot is most pleased when each and every tiny thing in the flight plan - goes according to plan. Passengers in the cabin of an expert pilot sit in the comfort of not even noticing who is flying. As someone employed in a field where being boring is not exactly in high demand, this sounds pro...

PydanticAI + evals + LiteLLM pipeline

I gave a tech talk at a Python meetup titled "Overengineering an LLM pipeline". It's based on my experiences of building production-grade stuff with LLMs I'm not sure how overengineered it actually turned out. Experimental would be a better term as it is using PydanticAI graphs library, which is in its very early stages as of writing this, although arguably already better than some of the pipeline libraries. Anyway, here is a link to it. It is a CLI poker app where you play one hand against an LLM. The LLM (theoretically) gets better with a self-correcting mechanism based on the evaluation score from another LLM. It uses the annotated past games as an additional context to potentially improve its decision-making. https://github.com/juho-y/archipylago-poker

Koodihommia

Search This Blog