Comment by 827a

2 days ago

FYI in case you aren't aware, the rewrite was shipped, and then had to be reverted due to issues being discovered. That's "Jarred's high quality bar" you're so confident in.

12 comments

827a

Reply
raincole  2 days ago

The whole point of having canary builds is that they're unstable. That's why they're called canary. Rockets failing in test flights isn't a bad thing.

  • kelipso  2 days ago

    It absolutely is a bad thing. That's why so much effort goes into designing and manufacturing rockets correctly. So the tests go well and you can move onto actual launches. Using that as a metaphor for canary builds displays a lack of knowledge in just multiple areas lol.

  • Shank  2 days ago

    > Rockets failing in test flights isn't a bad thing.

    I hate to be pedantic but for a whole host of environmental reasons, they are suboptimal, and it still incinerates money to lose a rocket during a flight test.

    • haaz  2 days ago

      Yes, exactly this. SpaceX are super environmentally irresponsible, I wish they would follow the ESA/NASA development model that is so much better for the environment! So European.

    • stavros  1 day ago

      I've decided to stop making analogies on HN because, instead of focusing on the helpful part, people always take them way too far and then act as if they invalidated your original point.

      In case you aren't aware, the whole codebase of Bun did not explode into debris just because it hit a bug. They can just fix the bug and recompile.

  • wiseowise  1 day ago

    Runtime that you build on isn’t a rocket. It’s like seeing a bridge collapse in front of your eyes.

johnfn  2 days ago

Can you link me a source that says that the rewrite shipped to a point release (not canary)? I'm not seeing this.