unconventional | Unconventional use cases for Jekyll - JekyllConf | Learning library

This kind of aligning is usually avoided because of maintenance burden, especially when combined with version control systems, e.g., git.

For example, suppose you want to change some strings in your code later, e.g., "some long string" to "some very long string". Then your code becomes

The key here is that git does not record the fact that a commit was cherry-picked from one branch to another; it just creates a new commit based on the one you specify (the same applies to "git rebase").

As far as git is concerned, you have these commits:

• 1044abb which creates the file
• 19afeba which adds the line
• cce2ca5 which adds the line
• f63dc50 which removes the line

Note that I haven't described these commits as "on" one branch or the other, because strictly that has no meaning in git; a branch points at a commit, and other commits are reachable via "parent" pointers.

At the point when you merge the two branches:

• 1044abb, cce2ca5 and f63dc50 are reachable from "master"
• 1044abb and 19afeba are reachable from "mybranch"
• the file in "master" only has one line
• the file in "mybranch" has two lines

When you merge, git determines a "merge base" based on the most recent commit reachable from both branches; in this case, that is 1044abb. It then looks at the differences between that commit and the two branches being merged:

• between 1044abb and f63dc50 ("master") the file is not changed
• between 1044abb and 19afeba ("mybranch") the file has an added line

It then combines these two changes, and applies them to produce the new version of the file. Since one side of the merge wants to add the line, and the other wants to do nothing, the resolution is to add the line.

The result is:

• cce2ca5, f63dc50 and 19afeba are all reachable from "master"
• 19afeba is reachable from "mybranch"
• you have master checked out, which has the line again

Or to put it more succinctly: you've added the line, removed it, and then added it again.

One simple way to solve this is by changing the type of the Tags property to dynamic.

So I used Array#forEach to iterate through the array and get the index of the button.

So I use the buttons array because it contains all the button.button-label elements, and the .next-btn elements have the .button-label class.

So I slice the buttons array to return all the items in the array after the one that called the focusHere function, and found the first item or instance of the .next-btn element

You can try this (in C1 given that your data starts from A2:A):

UPDATED:

To answer your questions:

Each worker process created by the Pool.map() needs to execute the instance method self.do_thing(). In order to do that Python pickles the instance and passes it to the subprocess (which unpickles it). If each instance has a Manager it will be a problem because they're not pickleable. Part of the unpickling process involves importing the module that defines the class and restoring the instance's attributes (which were also pickled).

You can avoid the problem by having the class create its own class-level Manager (shared by all instances of the class). Here the __init__() method creates the manager class attribute the first time an instance is created and from that point on, further instances will reuse this it — it's sometimes called "lazy initialization"

If you want optimized code, ask your compiler for it! There's no point in examining how optimized unoptimized code is.

-O3 completely eliminates the loop.

Compiler Explorer demo: standard
Compiler Explorer demo: non-standard

If we add something with a side-effect to the loop, we get the exact same result from both approaches.

Compiler Explorer demo: standard
Compiler Explorer demo: non-standard

That optimized code is the equivalent of

Seems like kafka is using gpg --print-md sha512 https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/release.py#L616

Verification is done by diff then

The problem is the following two lines in the .make.cc file: