gedhrel

TBH the UK in the single market is a better outcome for the UK as well as the EU. It puts something like reins on our frequently out-of-control government and leaves one powerful neoliberal voice out of the shouting match.

You're kidding. It'd be an astonishing political victory.

You don't understand correctly. There are a bunch of requirements which (were they not waived, which there's a nonzero chance they might be) are little more than establishing aspirations - adopting the Euro is one of those.

The alternative is to continue with a process that's been demonstrably successful, despite it offending your sensibilities.

Banks are prepared to pay for it. People are prepared to do it. It meets the business needs. Change is massively high-risk in a hugely conservative industry.

I think you vastly overestimate the separability of these systems.

Picture 10,000 lines of code in one method, with a history of multiple decades.

Now picture that that method has buried in it, complex interactions with another method of similar size, which is triggered via an obscure side-effect.

Picture whole teams of developers adding to this on a daily basis in realtime.

There is no "meaningful progress" to be made here. It may offend your aesthetic sense, but it's just the reality of doing business.

rerere is a lifesaver here.

(I'm also a fan of rebasing; but I also like to land commits that perform a logical and separable chunk of work, because I like history to have decent narrative flow.)

Given the widespread existence of wasm sandboxing, rustc itself might want to think about alternative strategies for running compiler plugins. I suspect there'd be a performance hit with such an approach, but wasm tooling is getting really good; perhaps it is minor.

Apology appreciated, but unnecessary.

I don't want to derail a useful tool. It's worth going a bit beyond "hope" as a strategy, however, and thinking about if (how) this might be exploited.

I doubt anyone will be mining crypto in your sandbox. But perhaps you should think about detection; might it be possible to mask a malicious crate with a second that attempts to detect sandboxed compilation, for instance?

In any case, I think this still looks exceedingly interesting in the typical case, which is of detecting the impact of bugs from non-malicious actors.

I think you're trying to handwave at someone who knows more about the steganographic watermarking approach than you do.

Given the existence of macros, doesn't this let package maintainers run arbitrary code in the painter sandbox?

The opposite of "goth" is "ostrich"?

Yeah, I can see that.

Not everything, but this is.