In my experience, autocomplete/intellisense/LSP/etc is very difficult to get working on most codebases if you aren't already intimately familiar with how that codebase / language / framework / etc works, or someone with that familiarity has laid out exact steps for your IDE.
When I see someone using these features as part of their workflow, I semi-confidently predict that they spend the majority of their time working on a single codebase, such that the time investment to get everything working was worthwhile.
If, like me, you work on multiple different codebases most weeks, it rarely makes sense to even try setting those things up.
I am a software developer with infrastructure related skills, looking for a role probably described as software engineering, site reliability engineering, or devops. I am most at home working on projects creating tooling used by my peers, acting as a force multiplier for their productivity.
You should be using automated checks to keep credentials out of your repo, not relying on individual developers. And those checks can have explicit exceptions for known safe/public/test keys, just like you might explicitly allow testing or fake credit card numbers.
I reformatted and uploaded the game to a US-based print on demand game publisher. If you can't print your own and need a copy before the author has them back in stock or don't want to ship from the UK, here you go:
I wish you well, and wish I had money to invest. When you grow enough to be looking for devops engineers, or sooner for just software engineers, look me up?
> The Github license requires a waiver of the requirement of attribution insofar as such waiver is needed for Github to do what it already does e.g. as the license indicates, provide search results without attribution.
The whole problem is that I, as an uploader of code that I did not write, do not have the authority to make that waiver.
Not necessarily. If the license allows you to redistribute the code, you're just redistributing it to GitHub, and you're OK as far as the software license goes.
If GitHub then does things with that code that the license doesn't allow, it was GitHub that is doing something it's not allowed to - unless, as uploader, you've agreed to indemnify GitHub for this sort of thing.
It may be the case that what the license permits (combined with fair use law) is sufficient to allow what GitHub actually, currently does with the code, but not everything their TOS claims the right to do.
In particular, "store and display your Content [..] as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service" is rather broad given that the functionality included in the "Service" (defined as "the applications, software, products, and services provided by GitHub") can change at any time, without notice.
Wrong. My OSS project has over 15 years of history, uploaded to GitHub after migration from SF.net. It has third party dependencies that I use under their licenses - which often do require attribution.
Is there room here for some sort of industry body or label group to promote a "Works Offline" sort of brand, like organic and kosher food labels? Device makers would get to use the logo if their device wasn't utterly dependent on cloud services.
+1 for having a "use our API and solve a problem" question on your application. I love encountering those [when the API in question is well documented, which yours is]!
When I see someone using these features as part of their workflow, I semi-confidently predict that they spend the majority of their time working on a single codebase, such that the time investment to get everything working was worthwhile.
If, like me, you work on multiple different codebases most weeks, it rarely makes sense to even try setting those things up.