Possibly I’m a little late for the “casual daily puzzle game” party. (Did Wordle already get invented in this timeline; I forget?)
I think there’s something in an idea I’ve been toying with. Bring on the weekend, when I can throw some brainpower at the frontend code!
![A notebook is held in front of terminal output. The terminal begins with 'Start position: [0,4]' and then shows a series of 5×5 grids containing numbers: one, labelled 'Route:', shows random grid of the numbers 0 through 24; the second, labelled 'Puzzle:', contains 1s, 2s, and 3s, corresponding perhaps to the orthagonal distances between consecutive numbers from the first grid; the third, whose title is obscured by the notebook, shows the same thing again but with 'walls' drawn in ASCII art between some of the numbers. The notebook in front contains hand-drawn sketches of similar grids with arrows "jumping" around between them.](/_q23u/2025/03/20250313_100059-640x487.jpg)
This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.
…
I didn’t know how to solve the puzzle, but I did know how to write a computer program to solve it for me. That would probably be even more fun, and I could argue that it didn’t actually count as cheating. I didn’t want the solution to reveal itself to me before I’d had a chance to systematically hunt it down, so I dived across the room to turn off the console.
I wanted to have a shower but I was worried that if I did then inspiration might strike and I might figure out the answer myself. So I ran upstairs to my office, hit my Pomodoro timer, scrolled Twitter to warm up my brain, took a break, made a JIRA board, Slacked my wife a status update, no reply, she must be out of signal. Finally I fired up my preferred assistive professional tool. Time to have a real vacation.
…
Obviously, I’d be a fan of playing your single-player video game any damn way you like. But beyond that, I see Robert’s point: there are some puzzles that are just as much (or more) fun to write a program to solve than to solve as a human. Digital jigsaws would be an obvious and ongoing example, for me, but I’ve also enjoyed “solving” Hangman (not strictly a single-player game, but my “solution” isn’t really applicable to human opponents anyway), Mastermind (this is single-player, in my personal opinion – fight me! – the codemaster doesn’t technically have anything “real” to do; their only purpose is to hold secret information), and I never got into Sudoku principally because I found implementing a solver much more fun that being a solver.
Anyway: Robert’s post shows that he’s got too much time on his hands when his wife and kids are away, and it’s pretty fun.
This post is also available as a podcast. Listen here, download for later, or subscribe wherever you consume podcasts.
Eleven years ago, comedy sketch The Expert had software engineers (and other misunderstood specialists) laughing to tears at the relatability of Anderson’s (Orion Lee) situation: asked to do the literally-impossible by people who don’t understand why their requests can’t be fulfilled.
Decades ago, a client wanted their Web application to automatically print to the user’s printer, without prompting. I explained that it was impossible because “if a website could print to your printer without at least asking you first, everybody would be printing ads as you browsed the web”. The client’s response: “I don’t need you to let everybody print. Just my users.”1
So yeah, I was among those that sympathised with Anderson.
In the sketch, the client requires him to “draw seven red lines, all of them strictly perpendicular; some with green ink and some with transparent”. He (reasonably) states that this is impossible2.
Following one of the many fever dreams when I was ill, recently, I woke up wondering… how might an AI programmer tackle this task? I had an inkling of the answer, so I had to try it:
RSS
Spotify
Pocket Casts
Apple Podcasts
YouTube<canvas> element3, the
question is the same as in the sketch.
When I asked gpt-4o to assist me, it initially completely ignored the perpendicularity requirement.
Let’s see if it can do better, with a bit of a nudge:
gpt-4o claimed that the task was absolutely achievable, even clarifying that the lines would all be “strictly perpendicular to each other”… before proceeding to instead
make each consecutively-drawn line be perpendicular only to its predecessor:
You might argue that this test is unfair, and it is. But there’s a point that I’ll get to.
But first, let me show you how a different model responded. I tried the same question with the newly-released Claude 3.7 Sonnet model, and got what I’d consider to be a much better answer:
In my mind: an ideal answer acknowledges the impossibility of the question, or at least addresses the supposed-impossibility of it. Claude 3.7 Sonnet did well here, although I can’t confirm whether it did so because it had been trained on data that recognised the existence of “The Expert” or not (it’s clearly aware of the sketch, given its answer).
I remain committed to not using AI to do anything I couldn’t do myself (and can therefore check).4
And the answer I got from gpt-4o to this question goes a long way to demonstrating why.
Suppose I didn’t know that it was impossible to make seven lines perpendicular to one another in anything less than seven-dimensional space. If that were the case, it’d be tempting to accept an AI-provided answer as correct, and ship it. And while that example is trivial (and at least a little bit silly), it’s the kind of thing that, I have no doubt, actually happens in other areas.
Chatbots eagerness to provide a helpful answer, even if no answer is possible, is a huge liability. The other week, I experimentally asked Claude 3.5 for assistance with a PHPUnit mocking challenge and it provided a whole series of answers… that were completely invalid! It later turned out that what I was trying to achieve was impossible5.
Given that its answers clearly didn’t-work there was no risk I’d have shipped it anyway, but I’m certain that there exist developers who’ve asked a chatbot for help in a domain they didn’t understood and accepted its answer while still not understanding it, which feels to me like a quick route to introducing into your code a bug that happy-path testing won’t reveal. (Y’know, something like a security vulnerability, or an accessibility failure, or whatever.)
Code assisting AI remains really interesting and occasionally useful… but it’s also a real minefield and I see a lot of naiveté about its limitations.
1 My client eventually took that particular requirement out of scope and I thought the matter was settled, but I heard that they later contracted a different developer to implement just that bit of functionality into the application that we delivered. I never checked, but I think that what they delivered exploited ActiveX/Java applet vulnerabilities to achieve the goal.
2 Nerds gotta nerd, and so there’s been endless debate on the Internet about whether the task is truly impossible. For example, when I first saw the video I was struck by the observation that perpendicularity within a set of lines is limited linearly by the number of dimensions you’re working in, so it’s absolutely possible to model seven lines all perpendicular to one another… if you’re working in seven dimensions. But let’s put that all aside for a moment and assume the task is truly impossible within some framework unspecified-but-implied within the universe of the sketch, ‘k?
3 Two-dimensionality feels like a fair assumed constraint, given that in the sketch Anderson tries to demonstrate the challenges of the task by using a flip-chart.
4 I also don’t use AI to produce anything creative that I then pass off as my own, because, y’know, many of these models don’t seem to respect copyright. You won’t find any AI-written content on my blog, for example, except specifically to demonstrate AI’s capabilities (or lack thereof) when discussing AI, and this is always be clearly labelled. But that’s another question.
5 In fact, I was going about the problem itself in entirely the wrong way: some minor refactoring later and I had some solid unit tests that fit the bill, and I didn’t need to do the impossible. But the AI never clocked that, and I suspect it never would have.
This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.
…
5. If you use AI, you are the one who is accountable for whatever you produce with it. You have to be certain that whatever you produced was correct. You cannot ask the system itself to do this. You must either already be expert at the task you are doing so you can recognise good output yourself, or you must check through other, different means the validity of any output.
…
9. Generative AI produces above average human output, but typically not top human output. If you overuse generative AI you may produce more mediocre output than you are capable of.
…
I was also tempted to include in 9 as a middle sentence “Note that if you are in an elite context, like attending a university, above average for humanity widely could be below average for your context.”
…
In this excellent post, Joanna says more-succinctly what I was trying to say in my comments on “AI Is Reshaping Software Engineering — But There’s a Catch…” a few days ago. In my case, I was talking very-specifically about AI as a programmer’s assistant, and Joanna’s points 5. and 9. are absolutely spot on.
Point 5 is a reminder that, as I’ve long said, you can’t trust an AI to do anything that you can’t do for yourself. I sometimes use a GenAI-based programming assistant, and I can tell you this – it’s really good for:
DateTimeInterface::format character codes memorised. Now I’d have to look them up. Or I can write a comment (which I should anyway, for the next human) that says something like //
@returns String a date in the form: Mon 7th January 2023 and when I get to my date(...) statement the AI will already have worked out that the format is 'D
jS F Y' for me. I’ll recognise a valid format when I see it, and I’ll be testing it anyway.
Other things… not so much. The other day I experimentally tried to have a GenAI help me to boilerplate some unit tests and it really failed at it. It determined pretty quickly, as I had, that to test a particular piece of functionality need to mock a function provided by a standard library, but despite nearly a dozen attempts to do so, with copious prompting assistance, it couldn’t come up with a working solution.
Overall, as a result of that experiment, I was less-effective as a developer while working on that unit test than I would have been had I not tried to get AI assistance: once I dived deep into the documentation (and eventually the source code) of the underlying library I was able to come up with a mocking solution that worked, and I can see why the AI failed: it’s quite-possibly never come across anything quite like this particular problem in its training set.
Solving it required a level of creativity and a depth of research that it was simply incapable of, and I’d clearly made a mistake in trying to outsource the problem to it. I was able to work around it because I can solve that problem.
But I know people who’ve used GenAI to program things that they wouldn’t be able to do for themselves, and that scares me. If you don’t understand the code your tool has written, how can you know that it does what you intended? Most developers have a blind spot for testing and will happy-path test their code without noticing if they’ve introduced, say, a security vulnerability owing to their handling of unescaped input or similar… and that’s a problem that gets much, much worse when a “developer” doesn’t even look at the code they deploy.
Security, accessibility, maintainability and performance – among others, I’ve no doubt – are all hard problems that are not made easier when you use an AI to write code that you don’t understand.
1 I’ve 100% had an occasion when I’ve called something $theUserID in one
place and then $theUserId in another and not noticed the case difference until I’m debugging and swearing at the computer
2 I’ve described the experience of using an LLM in this way as being a little like having a very-knowledgeable but very-inexperienced junior developer sat next to me to whom I can pass off the boring tasks, so long as I make sure to check their work because they’re so eager-to-please that they’ll choose to assume they know more than they do if they think it’ll briefly impress you.
3 e.g. switching a selector from $(...) to
document.querySelector but then failing to switch the trailing .addClass(...) to .classList.add(...)– you know: like an underexperienced but
eager-to-please dev!
This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.
I don’t believe AI will replace software developers, but it will exponentially boost their productivity. The more I talk to developers, the more I hear the same thing—they’re now accomplishing in half the time what used to take them days.
But there’s a risk… Less experienced developers often take shortcuts, relying on AI to fix bugs, write code, and even test it—without fully understanding what’s happening under the hood. And the less you understand your code, the harder it becomes to debug, operate, and maintain in the long run.
So while AI is a game-changer for developers, junior engineers must ensure they actually develop the foundational skills—otherwise, they’ll struggle when AI can’t do all the heavy lifting.
![Comic comparing 'Devs Then' to 'Devs Now'. The 'Devs Then' are illustrated as muscular men, with captions 'Writes code without AI or Stack Overflow', 'Builds entire games in Assembly', 'Crafts mission-critical code fo [sic] Moon landing', and 'Fixes memory leaks by tweaking pointers'. The 'Devs Now' are illustrated with badly-drawn, somewhat-stupid-looking faces and captioned 'Googles how to center a div in 2025?', 'ChatGPT please fix my syntax error', 'Cannot exit vim', and 'Fixes one bug, creates three new ones'.](/_q23u/2025/02/devs-then-devs-now-lieo-640x601.jpg)
Eduardo picks up on something I’ve been concerned about too: that the productivity boost afforded to junior developers by AI does not provide them with the necessary experience to be able to continue to advance their skills. GenAI for developers can be a dead end, from a personal development perspective.
That’s a phenomenon not unique to AI, mind. The drive to have more developers be more productive on day one has for many years lead to an increase in developers who are hyper-focused on a very specific, narrow technology to the exclusion even of the fundamentals that underpin them.
When somebody learns how to be a “React developer” without understanding enough about HTTP to explain which bits of data exist on the server-side and which are delivered to the client, for example, they’re at risk of introducing security problems. We see this kind of thing a lot!
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with not-knowing-everything, of course (in fact, knowing where the gaps around the edges of your knowledge are and being willing to work to fill them in, over time, is admirable, and everybody should be doing it!). But until they learn, a developer that lacks a comprehension of the fundamentals on which they depend needs to be supported by a team that “fill the gaps” in their knowledge.
AI muddies the water because it appears to fulfil the role of that supportive team. But in reality it’s just regurgitating code synthesised from the fragments it’s read in the past without critically thinking about it. That’s fine if it’s suggesting code that the developer understands, because it’s like… “fancy autocomplete”, which you can accept or reject based on their understanding of the domain. I use AI in exactly this way many times a week. But when people try to use AI to fill the “gaps” at the edge of their knowledge, they neither learn from it nor do they write good code.
I’ve long argued that as an industry, we lack a pedagogical base: we don’t know how to teach people to do what we do (this is evidenced by the relatively high drop-out rate on computer science course, the popular opinion that one requires a particular way of thinking to be a programmer, and the fact that sometimes people who fail to learn programming through paradigm are suddenly able to do so when presented with a different one). I suspect that AI will make this problem worse, not better.
As I mentioned in my recent Blog Questions Challenge, I recently switched my blog from WordPress, which it had been running on for over 20 years of its 26 year history, to ClassicPress.1 I’m aware that I’m not the only person for whom ClassicPress might be a better fit than WordPress2, so I figured I should share the process by which I undertook the change.
Switching from WordPress to ClassicPress should be a non-destructive, 100% reversible process, but (even though I’ve got solid backups) I wasn’t ready to trust that, so I decided to operate on a copy of my site. I’m glad I did, because there were a couple of teething issues I needed to tackle before I could launch.
I took a simple approach to duplicating the site: (1) I copied the site directory, and (2) I copied the database, and (3) I set up a new subdomain to use for testing. Here’s how I did each step:
This should’ve been simple, but a du -sh revealed that my /wp-content/uploads directory is massive (I should look into that) and I didn’t want to
clone it. And I didn’t want r need to clone my /wp-content/cache directory either. So I ran:
rsync -av --exclude=wp-content ./old-site-directory/ ./new-site-directory/ to copy everything except wp-content, and then
rsync -av --exclude=uploads --exclude=cache ./old-site-directory/wp-content/ ./new-site-directory/wp-content/ to copy wp-content except the
uploads and cache subdirectories, and then finally
ln -s ./old-site-directory/wp-content/uploads ./new-site-directory/wp-content/uploads to symlink the uploads directory, sharing it between the two sites
I just piped mysqldump into mysql to clone from one database to the other:
mysqldump -uUSERNAME -p --lock-tables=false old-site-database | mysql -uUSERNAME -p new-site-database
I edited DB_NAME in wp-config.php in the new site’s directory to point it at the new database.
My DNS is already configured with a wildcard to point (almost) all *.danq.me subdomains to this server already. I decided to use the name classicpress-testing.danq.me as my
temporary/test domain name. To keep any “changes” to my cloned site to a minimum, I overrode the domain name in my wp-config.php rather than in my database, by adding the
following lines:
define('WP_HOME','https://classicpress-testing.danq.me');
define('WP_SITEURL','https://classicpress-testing.danq.me');
Because I use Caddy/FrankenPHP as my webserver3, configuration was really easy: I just copied the relevant part of my Caddyfile (actually an include), changed the domain name and the root, and it just worked, even provisioning me out a LetsEncrypt SSL certificate. Magical4.
Now that I had a duplicate copy of my blog running at https://classicpress-testing.danq.me/, it was time to switch it to ClassicPress. I started by switching my wp-admin
colour scheme to a different one in my cloned site, so it’d be immediately visually-obvious to me if I’d accidentally switched and was editing the “wrong” site (I also made sure I was
logged-out of my primary, live site, so I was confident I wouldn’t break anything while I was experimenting!).
ClassicPress provides a migration plugin which checks for common problems and then switches your site from WordPress to ClassicPress, so I installed it and ran it. It said that everything was okay except for my (custom) theme and a my self-built plugins, which it understandably couldn’t check compatibility of. It recommended that I install Twenty Seventeen – the last WordPress default theme to not require the block editor – but I didn’t do so: I was confident that my theme would work anyway… and if it didn’t, I’d want to fix it rather than switch theme!
And then… it all broke.
After swiftly doing a safety-check that my live site was still intact, I started trying to work out why my site wasn’t broken. Debugging a ClassicPress PHP issue is functionally identical to debugging a similar WordPress issue, for obvious reasons: check the logs, work out what’s broken, realise it’s a plugin, disable that plugin while you investigate further, etc.
In my case, the “blocking” issues were:
Everything else worked fine, as far as I’ve determined in the weeks that have followed. My other plugins, which include Advanced Editor Tools (I should probably look into Enriched Editor), Antispam Bee, Google Authenticator, IndieAuth, Post Kinds, Post Snippets, Regenerate Thumbnails, Syndication Links, Webmention, WebSub, and WP-SCSS all “just worked”.
I ran the two sites in-parallel for a couple of weeks, with the ClassicPress one as a “read only” version (so I didn’t pollute my uploads directory!), but it was pretty unnecessary
because it all worked pretty seamlessly, despite my complex stack of custom code. When I wanted to switch for-real, all I needed to do was swap the domain names over in my Caddyfile and
edit the wp-config.php of my ClassicPress installation: step 1.3, but in reverse!
If you hadn’t been told5, you probably wouldn’t have even known I’d made a change: I suppress basically all infrastructure-identifying headers from my server output as a matter of course, and ClassicPress and WordPress are functionally-interchangeable from a front-end perspective6.
From my experience, here are the differences I’ve discovered since switching from WordPress to ClassicPress:
<datalist>, which isn’t as full-featured as the Javascript solution WordPress employs. This bugs
me almost enough to be a showstopper, but I gather it’s getting fixed in a near-future version.
In summary: I’m enjoying using ClassicPress, even where there are rough edges. For me, 99% of my experience with it is identical to how I used WordPress anyway, it’s relatively lightweight and fast, and it’s easy enough to switch back if I change my mind.
1 It saddens me that I have to keep clarifying this, but I feel like I do: my switch from WordPress to ClassicPress is absolutely nothing to do with any drama in the WordPress space that’s going on right now: in fact, I’d been planning to try it out since before any of the drama appeared. I appreciate that some people making a similar switch, including folks who use this blog post as a guide, might have different motivations to me, and that’s fine too. Personally, I think that ditching an installation of open-source WordPress based on your interpretation of what’s going on in the ecosystem is… short-sighted? But hey: the joy of open source is you can – and should! – do what you want. Anyway: the short of it is – the desire to change from WordPress to ClassicPress was, for me, 100% a technical decision and 0% a political one. And I’ll thank you for leaving any of your drama at the door if you slide into my comments, ta!
2 Matt recently described ClassicPress as “the last decent fork attempt for WordPress”, and I absolutely agree. There’s been a spate of forks and reimplementations recently. I’ve looked into many of them and been… very much underwhelmed. Want my hot take? Sure, here you go: AspirePress is all lofty ideas and no deliverables. FreeWP seems to be the same, but somehow without the lofty ideas. ForkPress is a ghost. Speaking of ghosts, Ghost isn’t a WordPress fork; they have got some cool ideas though. b2evolution is even less a WordPress fork but it’s pretty cool in its own right. I’m not sure what clamPress is trying to achieve but I’ve not given it a serious look. So yeah: ClassicPress is, in my mind, the only WordPress fork even worth consideration at this point, and as I describe in this blog post: it’s not for everybody.
3 I switched from Nginx over the winter and it’s been just magical: I really love Caddy’s minimal approach to production configuration. The only thing I’ve been able to fault it on is that it’s not capable of setting up client-side SSL certificate authentication on a path, only on an entire domain, which meant I needed to reimplement the authentication mechanism I use on a small part of my (non-blog) internal infrastructure.
4 To be fair, it wouldn’t have been hard if I’d still be using Nginx, because I’d set up Certbot to use DNS-based vertification to issue me wildcard SSL certificates. But doing this in Caddy still felt magical.
5 And assuming you don’t religiously check my colophon page.
6 Indeed, I wouldn’t have considered a switch to ClassicPress in the first place if it wasn’t a closely-aligned-enough fork that I retained the ability to flip-flop between the two to my heart’s content! I’ve loved WordPress for over two decades; that’s not going to change any time soon… and if e.g. ClassicPress ceased tracking WordPress releases and the fork diverged too far for my comfort, I’d probably switch back to regular old WordPress!
Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, I had a collection of 5¼” and later 3½” floppy disks1 on which were stored a variety of games and utilities that I’d collected over the years2.
I remember that at some point I acquired a program called INSULTS.COM. When executed, this tool would spoof a basic terminal prompt and then, when the user pressed any key,
output a randomly-generated assortment of crude insults.
As far as prank programs go, it was far from sophisticated. I strongly suspect that the software, which was released for free in 1983, was intended to be primarily a vehicle to promote
sales of a more-complex set of tools called PRANKS, which was advertised within.
In any case: as a pre-pubescent programmer I remember being very interested in the mechanism by which INSULTS.COM was generating its output.
Of course, nowadays I understand reverse-engineering better than I did as a child. So I downloaded a copy of INSULTS.COM from this Internet Archive image, ran it through Strings, and pulled out the data.
Easy!
Then I injected the strings into Perchance to produce a semi-faithful version of the application that you can enjoy today.
Why did I do this? Why do I do anything? Reimplementing a 42-year-old piece of DOS software that nobody remembers is even stranger than that time I reimplemented a 16-year old Flash advertisement! But I hope it gave you a moment’s joy to be told that you’re… an annoying load of festering parrot droppings, or whatever.
1 Also some 3″ floppy disks – a weird and rare format – but that’s another story.
2 My family’s Amstrad PC1512 had two 5¼” disk drives, which made disk-to-disk copying much easier than it was on computers with a single disk drive, on which you’d have to copy as much data as possible to RAM, swap disks to write what had been copied so far, swap disks back again, and repeat. This made it less-laborious for me to clone media than it was for most other folks I knew.
3 Assuming the random number generator is capable of generating a sufficient diversity of
seed values, the claim is correct: by my calculation, INSULTS.COM can generate 22,491,833 permutations of insults.
I have A Plan for today. Step #2 involves a deep-dive into Algolia search indexing, ranking, and priority, to understand how one might optimise for a diverse and complex dataset.
So obviously step #1 involves a big ol’ coffee and a sugary breakfast. Here we go…
It turns out my series of efforts to improve the BBC News RSS feeds are more-popular than I thought. People keep asking for variants of them, and it’s probably time I stopped hosting the resulting feeds on my NAS (which does a good job, but it’s in a highly-kickable place right under my desk).
So I’ve launched BBC-Feeds.DanQ.dev. On a 20-minute schedule, it generates both UK and World editions of the BBC News feeds, filtered to remove iPlayer, Sounds, app “nudges”, duplicates, and other junk, and optionally with the sports news filtered out too.
The entire thing is open source under an ultra-permissive license, so you can run your own copy if you don’t want to use mine.
Enjoy!
Earlier today, somebody called Allan commented on the latest in my series of several blog posts about how I
mutilate manipulate the RSS feeds of BBC News to work around their (many, and increasingly so) various shortcomings, specifically:
Well, it turns out that some people want #3: the sport. But still don’t want the other two.
I shan’t be subscribing to this RSS feed, and I can’t promise I’ll fix it if it gets broken. But if “without the crap, but with the sports” is the way you like your BBC News RSS feed, I’ve got you covered:
So there you go, Allan, and anybody in a similar position. I hope that fulfils your need for sports news… without the crap.
Last year, a colleague introduced me to lazygit, a TUI git client with a wealth of value-added features.
Somehow, though, my favourite feature is the animation you see if you nuke the working tree. 😘 Excellent.
This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.
the world needs more recreational programming.
like, was this the most optimal or elegant way to code this?no, but it was the most fun to write.
Yes. This.
As Baz Luhrmann didn’t say, despite the implications of this video: code one thing every day that amuses you.
There is no greater way to protest the monetisation of the Web, the descent into surveillance capitalism, and the monoculture of centralised social media silos… than to create things just for the hell of it. Maybe that’s Kirby eating a blog post. Maybe that’s whatever slippy stuff Lu put out this week. Maybe it’s a podcast exclusively about random things that interest one person.
The pre-corporate Web was fun and weird. Nowadays, keeping the Internet fun and weird is relegated to a counterculture.
But making things (whether code, or writing, or videos, or whatever) “just because” is a critical part of that counterculture. It’s beautiful art flying in the face of rampant commercialism. The Web provides a platform where you can share what you create: it doesn’t have to be good, or original, or world-changing… there’s value in just creating and giving things away.
(And, of course, the weirder the better.)
Even when it’s technical, not all of my International Volunteer Day work for Three Rings has been spent using our key technologies (LNMR [Linux, Nginx, MariaDB, Ruby] stacks).
Today, I wrote some extra PHP for our WordPress-powered contact form to notify our Support Team volunteers via Slack when messages are sent. We already aim to respond to every message within 24 hours, 365 days a year, and are often faster than that… but this might help us to be even more-responsive to the needs of the charities who we help look after.
Not every code review is fireworks, but most Three Rings changes come from the actual needs of the voluntary organisations that Three Rings supports. Some of our users were confused by the way the Admin > Roles page was laid out, so one of our volunteers wrote an improved version.
And because we’re all about collaboration, discussion, learning from one another, and volunteer-empowerment… I’ve added a minor suggestion… but approved their change “with or without” it. I trust my fellow volunteer to either accept my suggestion (if it’s right), reject it (if it’s wrong), or solicit more reviews or bring it to Slack or our fortnightly dev meeting (if it requires discussion).
Good news! It turns out that the new code to fix the mail merge fields in Three Rings doesn’t introduce an inconsistency with established behaviour. It was important to check, but it turns out all is well.
I touched bases with a fellow volunteer on Slack. Three Rings volunteers primarily communicate via Slack: it helps us to work asynchronously, which supports the fact that our volunteers all have different schedules and preferences. Some might do a couple of evenings a week, others might do the odd weekend, others still might do an occasional intense solid week of volunteering with us and then nothing for months! A communication model that works both synchronously and asynchronously is really important to make that volunteering model work, and Slack fits the bill.
We get together in person sometimes, and we meet on Zoom from time to time too, but Slack is king of communication at Three Rings