At the same time, every change that enters Ladybird becomes our responsibility. It has to fit the architecture, survive future refactoring, interact correctly with the rest of the browser, and be understood by the people maintaining it. Whether code was typed by hand is beside the point. What matters is who is responsible for it once it enters the browser. Ladybird is becoming a browser for real users. The people introducing changes to it must be the people who decide those changes belong in the project, and who will answer for the consequences.

It assigns accountability for the whole project, which means it’s less likely for small details and tasks to “fall through the cracks”, those of which could be missed when responsibility is spread among multiple individuals.

“Drivers should not have the option to decide for themselves when they think it’s safe,” said Langerman, 26. “People are busy. People are distracted.”

This ensures that GetResponse and our customers comply with Anti-Spam laws.

I have yet to see a Snapd or Flatpak build of Audacity that I'm happy with. Those builds are beyond our control as they are made by 3rd parties. I do find it mildly annoying that Flatpak direct users that have problems with their builds to us.

Remember, our wizard controller is responsible for showing and updating steps, but our top-level controller is still responsible for managing our Pet models.

It is also why it's implementation in firefox is completely useless, considering that windows/osx/most linux distros plan to add support for DoH/DoT/DNScrypt resolvers in the near future, so firefox doing it itself will provide no additional benefit.

Users think every Webpack tool/config problem is a problem with a specific package and opens an issue asking for support on the package instead of Webpack. In the past year alone, I’ve had to deal with hundreds of Webpack issues on my repos.

The shell is responsible for expanding variables.

But more so, external style cannot be applied to a subsection of a web page unless they force it into an iframe, which has all sorts of issues of it's own which is why external CSS is usually ignored. Inline CSS is often stripped by the tag strippers who don't want you turning things on or off... and media queries shouldn't even play into it since the layout should be controlled by the page it's being shown inside (for webmail) or the client itself, NOT your mail.

I don't believe the sprockets and sprockets-rails maintainers (actually it's up to the Rails maintainers, see rails/rails#28430) currently consider it broken. (I am not a committer/maintainer on any of those projects). So there is no point in "waiting for someone else to fix" it; that is not going to happen (unless you can change their minds). You just need to figure out the right way to use sprockets 4 with rails as it is.

Then who is responsible for the actual rendering?

Although echo "$@" prints the arguments with spaces in between, that's due to echo: it prints its arguments with spaces as separators.

Wasn't sure if this belonged as an issue in Devise or Rails though.

It sounds like a gnome-open (or the equivalent library call) bug. Reassigning.

I agree that it's bad to have to handle this at the application level

Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails? That would make the patch not necessary? (I don't know if there's any good way to monkey-patch that in, I think you have to fork? So some change seems required...) Should the defaults be different somehow? This is very difficult to figure out.

Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails?

From my perspective the onus is on you to consider not just the words coming out of your mouth, but how they are received.

with ActiveForm-Rails, validations is the responsability of the form and not of the models. There is no need to synchronize errors from the form to the models and vice versa.

Think first: why do you want to use it in the browser? Remember, servers must never trust browsers. You can't sanitize HTML for saving on the server anywhere else but on the server.

And the App will be responsible for display a list of users adding/removing users of said list

When using TypeScript, cast the type of file.contents on your side.

But this is only a halfway decent way to clarify that this is an external dependency, because the only way to resolve a peer dependency warning is to install react from npm—there's no way to notify npm that you resolve the dependency to a browser global. So peer dependencies should be avoided in favor of external declarations. Then Rollup will take care of warning about "unresolved dependencies", even if external declarations can't express a particular version range with which your library is compatible like peer dependencies can.

Then, the projects that use these libraries get to process these import statements how they like when they are bundled. For the ones that wish to load jQuery from a global, we again mark 'jquery' as an external—since we still don't want Rollup to bundle jQuery—and as a global.

(Note that you're responsible for handling any race conditions that arise as a result of the component being destroyed before the promise resolves, though assigning state inside a destroyed component is harmless.)

The RFC is more appropriate because it does not allow a parent to abritrarily control anything below it, that responsibility still relies on the component itself. Just because people have been passing classes round and overriding child styles for years doesn't mean it is a good choice and isn't something we wnat to encourage.

margin, flex, position, left, right, top, bottom, width, height, align-self, justify-self among other is CSS properties that should never be modified by the child itself. The parent should always have control of those properties, which is the whole reason I'm asking for this.

I think we could even broadly caveat that by saying “do whatever element you want” but don't expect Svelte to care about following any HTML spec, etc.

I don’t want my source to be human-readable, not for protective reasons, but because I care about web performance more. I want my website to arrive at light speed on a tiny spec of magical network packet dust and blossom into a complete website. Or do whatever computer science deems is the absolute fastest way to send website data between computers. I’m much more worried about the state of web performance than I am about web education. But even if I was very worried about web education, I don’t think it’s the network’s job to deliver teachability

I don't think it should be the individual application's responsibility to add Cache-Control: Vary when that negotiation/routing is done by Rails on behalf of the app, do you?

At a certain point it is up to the application to specify when they're varying.