I've been trying to argue this point with my government several times (some MPs even replied friendly, so they'd actually read it, but still don't understand or believe it).
I've been trying to argue this point with my government several times (some MPs even replied friendly, so they'd actually read it, but still don't understand or believe it).
I Gitlab and Azure DevOps (also owned by MS) supports it, and even talked to an employee now working at Github, that implemented this in Azure DevOps.
More background: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/14863
With a semi-linear merge strategy, you rebase (without --fast-forward) before merging, so the history ends up looking like this:
* c8be0c632 Merge pull request #1538 from my-org/api-error-logging
|\
| * 80ecc4985 Fix security warning, bump nokogiri
| * 750613638 Log and respond with more detailed validation errors in the API
| * 0165d6812 Log code and details when rendering an API error response.
| * 1d4daab48 Refactor email validation result to include a descriptive message
| * 635214092 Move media_type logging into context_logging
|/
* 1cccd4412 Merge pull request #1539 from my-org/profile-clarify
|\
| * 87b342a32 Rename profile default to migration target
| * 2515c1e59 Fix disallow removing last profile in company
|/
* b8f3f1658 Merge pull request #1540 from my-org/customer
|\
| * 064b31232 Add customer-specific taxed allowance reduction
|/
* 3cf449f94 Merge pull request #1528 from my-org/console-logging
|\
| * 99657f212 Don't log to rails console in production
|/
* 8c72e7f19 Merge pull request #1527 from my-org/gemfile
It makes it easy to look at the Git history both at the 'PR level' kind of like a change log (`git log --merges --decorate --oneline`) or dig down into each PR to see all commits.Because I'm guessing allowing deletes would also make re-publishing possible, which would probably defeat the purpose. However, having them stick forever can also be annoying.
A few points that came up in the thread and are worth clarifying:
- We do get compared to Elasticsearch a lot. While we support some of its APIs, Manticore isn't a drop-in replacement. We've focused on performance, simplicity, and keeping things open-source without vendor lock-in. Our own SQL-based query language and REST endpoints are part of that philosophy. - @mdaniel was right to question the "drop-in" wording — that's not our goal. - As @sandstrom pointed out, tools like Typesense and Meilisearch are part of this evolving search space. We see Manticore fitting in where users want powerful full-text and vector search capabilities with lower resource overhead and SQL capabilities (we support JSON too though)
We'd love to hear from you: - What are your main use cases for search or log indexing? - Which Elasticsearch features (if any) are absolutely essential for you? - Are there performance comparisons or scaling challenges you'd like to see addressed?
Happy to answer any questions or dive deeper.
To me, storing and searching logs is quite different from most other search use-cases, and it's not obvious that they should be handled by the same piece of software.
For example, tokenization, stemming, language support many other things and are basically useless in log search. Also, log search is often storing a lot of data, and rarely retrieving it (different usage pattern from many search use-cases which tend to be less write-heavy and more about reads).
I know ElasticSearch has had success in both, but if I were Manticore/Typesense/Meilisearch I'd probably just skip logs altogether.
Loki, QuickWit and other such tools are likely better suited for logs.
- https://github.com/quickwit-oss/quickwit - https://github.com/grafana/loki
(both are also trying to replace Algolia, because both have cloud offerings)
Basically, the 'translate this' button you see on Twitter or Instagram next to comments in foreign languages. This API would make it trivial for all developers to add that to their web apps.
Safari/webkit is positive (though no official stance yet):
https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/339#iss...
As long as people are aligned on advancing the Ruby ecosystem, I think it should be possible to cooperate even if there are disagreement in other areas [which political party you support, differences in personal opinions, etc].
Maybe it'll be resolved eventually, just like Merb <> Rails, Bundler <> RubyGems and RubyTogether <> RubyCentral were eventually merged. That's what I'm hoping for!