Nice. I have a recent story about this.

Basically, we have a process to sell something that is too big, complex and extensive for smaller customers so the idea was to drastically reduce this process to be able to give smaller customers the ability to sell that process.

So, in January, I got an email with the assignment to do this. Since we don't do it like this, I say he should submit a ticket in our tracker and plan it into a release to have some sort of structure and organisation in what is being done and when. Such a thing should also happen with our project manager because, well, he is the person managing what is being worked on so he should know what is going on and what is important. This doesn't happen.

4 Months later, the person sending the mail asked me what the status of that is, I didn't know because I was busy with our other stuff that actually followed our organisation.

This feature is super-duper important and already promised to some customers so it needs to happen quickly. Okay, we plan it in a release and I start working on it. The Plan was that since this was a "1 Task Process", doing that in our existing process, wouldn't make much sense and we decided to do this in a separate process that then relies on the codebase of our "main" process. While working on it, more and more issues popped up that made it really complicated to do it like that because our existing code just relied on a lot of things even if they are not in use. This meant that, to use it in the capacity as I needed, I would have to rip a lot of stuff out of the existing codebase and made this more commonly useable even though this wasn't "used" in the process anyway.

Yes, that sounds weird but you need to know that this is a codebase grown over 15 years so weird things are to be expected.

I do all of that and the sales team has a meeting and I was asked if I had already something that could be presented there, which I had, sort of.

This is presented in that meeting and suddenly this is not enough. "There needs to be other places to be involved in this as well and the customer needs to be able to make changes after the fact".

So, from the initial "1 Task process" we are now at a more complex process to handle the additional stuff of involving a separate entity of the customer, starting another process and being able to make changes to the initial variables.

I don't necessarily have a problem with changing things, but the utter lack of thought or planning of the person submitting the feature request is what drives me nuts. I mean, you had 4 months to think about what this should do and all you could come up with were 4 bullet points that just barely resemble the current state. Adding to that, the constant emphasis on "This is important and needs to happen ASAP". I mean, in literally every mail that person sent to me was the "this is very important, this needs to be priority".

It is like, yeah dude, I got that the 2nd time you wrote that to me but you could have at least invested some time yourself to properly think about this more than 10 minutes. To maybe notice that what you want isn't enough to do what you need.

Man, my banking app recently switched to a different keyboard. One that doesn't allow integrations like bitwarden. I also cannot copy paste my password into the password field so I have to enter my 32 character password by hand.

Mind you, this is not an app that does ANY banking in the first place it is just to authorize access to my bank account or for transactions.

So it is always a few minutes copying the password, making sure I haven't miss-typed on the shitty keyboard or because of my sausage fingers and then being logged out of my bank account in the browser because it took so much time copying that password.

They already tried that with Anno 1800, didn't work out that well.

They look so disappointed and concerned.

Even worse is that it is a trademark. There was a kickstarter for a game "prey for the gods" which could have gotten a trademark dispute over the usage of the name "prey" from bethesda.

So they changed the name to "praey for the gods" to not have to deal with yearlong legal battle and burn the Kickstarter funds.

I totally agree. I had it a few times in which someone calls me, rips me out of my thoughs, we discuss something, hang up and I have nothing retained from what we talked about. Or, even better, someone says something on a call and I do that and then they never said anything about that.

Even worse, I can't listen to the conversation in 1-2 weeks because that is the time I could actually work on it and remember every detail that we talked about.

Now I am strictly going with emails. Sure they can call me and we talk about the feasibility or discuss possible solutions but any request for implementation has to happen either over an email of which I then create a ticket/issue or they create one directly themselves.

That way I can prove that what I implemented was based on what was requested and if that was wrong then the request wasn't clear enough.

It's a bit of an infuriating story that I had not so long ago.

I have a Playstation account and I recently wanted to log into that account on the PlayStation website. The Password I had saved in my Bitwarden Password Manager was apparently wrong. Okay, then I will just reset it, that's fine.

I went through the Password reset process and generated a new Password, pasted it into the Password field and sent it and everything was fine. I tried to log in with that password and was told that the username or password was wrong. Okay, that is weird, since I reset the password just now the login name couldn't be wrong because, well, I just used that for the reset.

I tried that several times with the same result and gave up.

A few months later, I wanted to try again and had the same problem. I wanted to sort that out so I went through the same process with the Support bot yet again which then told me that I should come back in the "office hours". A company making 84 billion in revenue should be able to employ 24/7 customer service or at least tell me that when I request support and not let me go through the bot again.

So, I waited for the customer service personnel to be available and told them my problem. There I was told that "everything was looking fine on their end" and they quickly ended the support. I mean, yes, I was angry but wasn't abusive to that person because if you couldn't help me what should I do with my account, it also definitely wasn't their specific fault. But I would, at least, have expected more than "Well, works on our end, sucks for you, bye".

The next time I tried again and got a more competent Support dude and we ran through the same troubleshooting steps as before. Reset password (even though I just did that, again, through the bot), logged in again and failed again. This time they suggested that I could use a "normal" password that I don't generate. THAT worked for some reason.

All of my generated passwords in Bitwarden are up to 32 long with all possible characters, depending on what the website allows or expects. If a website, for example, doesn't allow 32 characters, I adjust and shorten it to the maximum length they allow. That worked without issues so far.

Well, turns out that the field that you use to reset your password has a character limit of 30 characters. But, this would be fine if the dialogue tells you that your password is too long, but it doesn't. It just cuts off at 30 characters and happily saves that.

However, the Password field that you use to log in doesn't have that restriction.

This means that you reset your password with a 32-character long generated password, which is saved in your vault, PlayStation saves a 30-long password and then you use the 32-long password to log in, which fails because it isn't the same.

And this isn't even mentioned in the password guidelines. It only said "min 8 characters" but not the maximum.

There is also an interesting video by tasting history about this: https://youtu.be/-Y_TWPbmiRE

IIRC these even used the guide in a world war because of how good the maps in it were.

Well, I can only speak from my own experience.

When the PS5 launched I wanted to upgrade but you literally couldn't get it because it wasn't in stock anywhere. You could only find it on eBay of some private seller that started at almost double the price, no, thank you. Then Sony introduced this "Register and on the next event you get a slot to buy one from the official Website" which was great. I got invited the first time and literally couldn't buy it because the website was broken. Whenever I wanted to select my payment method the checkout got blank and there was nothing you could do. Even worse was that you couldn't hard refresh the shop because this would have killed the session that the website needed to allow you to buy it. So, even switching browsers with the same "invitation link" didn't work. I reported this to the support, but they didn't really care. half a year later, I got my second invitation link and the same happened then as well. I reported it again to the support, but they still didn't know what to do with that information or wanted to troubleshoot this.

And now, there isn't really a need for it anyway. The Games that I would have wanted to buy on the PS5 released on the PC.

Could also be "Continous Integration" (from CI/CD - Continous integration/Continous deployment/delivery)

judging by the "Why build a new CI?" section their old "CI" was built on Azure DevOps so I would go with Continous Integration here.

Would have been nice to say what "new primary metadata source" that is because you can't really distinguish where everything is coming from anyway and just have to guess or ask on Reddit/lemmy. ~~Is that now a completely new metadata source, do they now prefer TheMovieDB or maybe IMDB?~~

A year or so ago I actually tried to get into Jellyfin and it wasn't really that pleasant experience.

A bit of background: I am mainly a Java and JavaScript developer and have used Plex for over a decade now. I even developed a Plugin for Plex with Python. Naturally, Jellyfin came across my radar so I checked it out but they didn't have a Metadata Provider for the Metadata Source that I needed for some of my Libraries. There were alternatives but this would require to completely change my libraries which I wasn't interested in.

So, I set out to just do it myself. I did know some C# but was by far not as up-to-date as you could be but I didn't really care because I wanted to see how that project went and if I could get into it I could learn more about C# while doing it.

However, while I could get the Plugin compiled and loaded into a Jellyfin instance and even get some metadata downloaded, I quickly hit brick walls. From what I could tell, there weren't even method comments for, you know, methods you need to implement so that you can write a metadata provider.

Not being able to resolve this through trial and error or looking at other currently active Providers (who seem to all do things differently, so no consistency) I asked on the Jellyfin Subreddit for help and got told to use the Matrix Chat instead. This was already annoying because that isn't how you amass knowledge that someone can fall back to and find when they have questions because Matrix is a walled garden. Regardless I asked there as well and didn't get any help or the responses didn't really help me.

So, I shelved the project.

What I want to say here is that FOSS Projects like Jellyfin should prioritize their documentation. The easier it is for people to understand how things work and "get into" the project the more people would be willing to actively contribute. I know that what I described above could just be my inexperience or lack of understanding and knowledge of C# and everything around it but I would imagine that many developers are in the same situation as me and would like to contribute but can't get over those hurdles. This is even worse for new developers who might want to stretch their legs in the Open Source community but are still learning.

Reading this with "we need developers" and "you can contribute to our documentation" looks a bit contradictory to me because shouldn't the "experienced" contributor not create the documentation?