I’m working with a legacy codebase for the last few months, where a simple PR often ends up crossing a 1000 lines count due to testing and commenting, and I can’t stop apologizing for those.
Yet there are people out there bragging about 10x changesets.
I made my statement as a BDD/TDD practitioner.
The code goal of software engineering is not to deliver said code, but to deliver it in a framework that lets others—and consequently me in a week’s time—to contribute easily. This makes both future improvements and bug fixes easier.
Dumping a ~25000 lines changeset with a git history that’s almost designed to confuse is antithetical to both engineering and open source.
The size of that changeset means that it’s inherently unreviewable.
The commit history is something I’ve seen only in the PRs that even the most dysfunctional companies would demand a rewrite for.
Also, 2-3 weeks review? PostgreSQL support could be added in that time without the need for a damn „vibe check”. Hell, it would probably take less time than that.
Why the fuck is the very first sentence not a link to the goddamn proposal being discussed? Are they trying to look sketchy to anyone with a habit of informational hygiene?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52025PC0101 - this one matches the date and the general topic. Dunno if it’s exactly the one.
Well, they do it Japanese style - by forcing developers to leave due to burnout.