Hear me out… could this be a typo?

Then the question would be, a typo for what? Given that scholars have been studying this word for 1600 and coming up with various theories, if a typo was a plausible theory, they would have already thought of that.

Scholars do some pretty intense analysis of this stuff. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75 about how differences between different scrolls are tracked.

I would think so (that is to say a misspelling, not a typo as it wasn't typed), but on the other hand misspelling generally look like another word that fits in the context, but nobody seems to be suggesting a better word that looks like epiousios to put in its place.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Edge. As far as tab management is concerned, it is superior to both Chrome and Firefox.

Can you add a brief explainer?

I've used Edge for the last couple of weeks.

There's a button on the top-left which collects the current tabs in the window and puts them aside. They can be restored later.

Personally, I've only used this by accident. But I could see it being useful for "I know I want to come back to these tabs later (e.g. tomorrow), but I want to close the browser / do other things now".

That sounds like a way to save a browser session that comprises of tabs. Perhaps a better UI. Many browsers have had the ability to group/tabs/bookmarks. But it's usually quite clunky.

Will tabs still work the same way in new ChromEdge?

In the PR model, we can easily hook up a build system to automatically trigger builds on remote branches. How would that fit into this?

And that can be (and is) done with the stacked diffs model as well. CI is orthogonal to whether you use the PR model of the stacked diffs model.

But what commit do you run the CI against? If you run it against a commit that's stacked on top of 3-4 other unreviewed changes, then the CI will include errors from all those other commits, not just yours.

You don't stack against random commits. Only commits that have passed tests before and so are on master, or your own commits.

That's not what the article says:

> Yang sees that the Diff for the “fix” is out for review. Yang uses the Phabricator command line tool to patch that commit on top of master. This means that it’s not a branch. It’s just a throwaway local commit. Yang then starts working on the first change. Yang submits a Diff for review from the command line. Later, the “fix” has changed, so Yang drops the patch of the old version from the Git history and patches in the updated one via interactive rebase.

I guess the CI would have to cherry-pick the PR onto master before running the tests?

We recently shifted from Gerrit to Bitbucket. I don't miss Gerrit. Perhaps I am missing something.

Why is it like that? Are people not interested to design better products or it’s the “don’t fix what’s not broken” attitude?

Decades of legacy code to maintain continuity of business (dont assume for a minute you can export or import data from many of these apps in any sort of sane way). I think a lot of businesses would be open to better designed products, but the aforementioned legacy compatibility and the need to train people on the new software make this a nonstarter. Pretty much the same reasons Microsoft Office is still so dominant, although I actually like the recent versions of office.

My guess would be that everybody is just happy they have some tool for this other than pen and paper. Since not one product in the sector distinguishes itself by being both mostly correct and somewhat useable, there is no pressure to improve.

EDIT: typo

The sale for this kind of software is made at a level that has no idea what the actual product/deliverable does. With predictable results.

I was hoping for a more technical article though.

Same. This is HN and I was hoping for an in-depth look at how the whole thing works between the client & server, how credits are handled, what checks are in place to prevent cheating, etc.