Version Control – Should I accept that a client add changes to the source code during a running development?

I'm currently in a situation (I'm a technical leader) where the client has changed the source code itself and I'm being asked to accept the changes and continue working on that version. Technically, he owns the code, but he decided to make a change and did not alert me.

His changes follow no convention, no good practice and have made a change in the data structure due to a reporting obligation.

My boss told me to accept and handle it. I answered him by asking why I should impose any norm on my team if a customer would simply ruin everything we've gone to great lengths to maintain the code quality.

The customer has recognized that he would accept to undo the changes, but data was already created with this change, and reversing the changes would mean they are lost.

Regardless of the details, my question remains. Should I accept the fact that the client has changed the source code and I need to continue with it, or should I stick to the standards of the team and refuse to continue.

Edit: I researched the matter, but I found only source code ownership issues.

The public version of iOS 13 does not appear in my iPhone software update

I used beta versions of iOS 13.

Even after the release of iOS 13, the public beta 4 of iOS 13.1 will be displayed on my device in the software update.

What do I need to get the publication?

You may be wondering why I need the public version. I just want to make sure that it's in the public version, as some of my apps in the beta versions of iOS 13 have few UI issues.

Why is the Postfix version in this exploit database entry higher than the latest Postfix version?

I searched Exploit Database to learn more about the types of exploits of a mail server. And I came across one that I do not completely understand:

Why does the exploit say that it applies to Postfix Version 4.2.x <4.2.8? As I understand from the official Postfix website, the latest version is only 3.4.6.

If I understand this correctly, this exploit must also be executed on a user with login privileges, right? Because shellshock exploits are privilege escalation exploits.

8 – Get the translated version of the current URL token

In D8, with the usual enabled translation modules, I have a custom popup to change the language on our site. Currently it contains a link and a text like this:


This would work except that the link of the translated page is different.

Example. If I am in the English site "" and change my language to Spanish, the page "" will load what does not exist. It is a 404 error

That is wrong. The Spanish version is spelled correctly "contáctenos"
I want the Spanish user to switch to "".

Is there a way to do this with the tokens? Or another approach? A way to know to send the user to the Spanish URL translation of the page


Plugins – The WordPress Revolution slider is not displayed in the mobile version

Since a consultant created our website 6 years ago, Slider Revolution has never landed on the phone. When searching for replies elsewhere in the stack, it was recommended that you enable the "disable slider on mobile devices" option. Actually that was enabled and I disabled it, but Slider still does not show up (I tried a few different browsers in case of caching).

I would appreciate any insight or help.

photoshop – How do I save this "tapeless" version of this image from ACR?

The sky shows stripes in Photoshop, but if I press Ctrl + Shift + A to switch to ACR, it's gone.

I'm assuming that when calling Adobe Camera Raw, no actual pixels are being changed and I'm not touching any buttons / sliders. It just displays a different preview of the image on my monitor. Strips are displayed in the Photoshop preview, but not in the ACR preview.

However, when I save the image from Photoshop and look at it, the banding is present. It's as if I could preview a nice tapeless sky in ACR, but there's no way to save it.

This link sounded exactly like my problem: Why do I see stripes with Photoshop but not with Lightroom?
BUT … according to the post, the banding is not really there, it's just a visual artifact, as Photoshop takes some memory-saving shortcuts.

But that does not sound right to me, because if I save the image and then open it … I still see the stripes.

How can I save what I see in ACR in my final PNG / JPG / whatever?

PS: I'm not sure if that matters, but the photo was originally a 32-bit HDR PSB file, which I then edited and converted to 16-bit.

magento2.3 – Error when upgrading the Magento CE version from 2.2.3 to 2.3.0 with Composer?

I tried to use the following command, but got errors

Command 1:

composer need the magento / product-community-edition 2.3.0 –no-update

Command 2:

Composer Update


 Your requirements could not be resolved to an installable set of packages.

  Problem 1
    - Installation request for magento/product-community-edition 2.3.0 -> satisfiable by magento/product-community-edition[2.3.0].
    - magento/product-community-edition 2.3.0 requires elasticsearch/elasticsearch ~2.0|~5.1 -> satisfiable by elasticsearch/elasticsearch[2.0.x-dev, v2.0.0, v2.0.0-beta1, v2.0.0-beta2, v2.0.0-beta3, v2.0.0-beta4, v2.0.0-beta5, v2.0.1, v2.0.2, v2.0.3, v2.1.0, v2.1.1, v2.1.2, v2.1.3, v2.1.4, v2.1.5, v2.2.0, v2.2.1, v2.2.2, v2.2.3, v2.3.0, v2.3.1, v2.3.2, v2.4.0, v5.1.0, v5.1.1, v5.1.2, v5.1.3, v5.2.0, v5.3.0, v5.3.1, v5.3.2, v5.4.0, v5.5.0] but these conflict with your requirements or minimum-stability.

if someone has an idea help me … !!!

Release Management – Switching to semantic versioning of simple version numbers

There is a software library / application / framework that currently uses "simple version numbers". So it is currently (say) version 135 and releases occur at irregular intervals when "enough for a new release exists". The next release would be 136 in this scheme.

I would like to change this to use the semantic versioning (version numbers) and Release behavior of course).

Which version should I use for the "first" semantic version?

That is, should be the next release 135.1.0 … or 136.0.0, Or 1.0.0? What is the "right" approach and what approach breaks the least number of version comparison algorithms?

html – tag generates a blue box behind the preformatted text and a table on it in the printable version. How can I disable this?

if there is a way to edit this, change the table in any way or disable it if it is printable = yes?

Yes to all questions.

The question "how" was not there, right?


  • Examine the box of developer tools to find out where the style came from.
  • If it's from MediaWiki, you can find it with developer tools and change it to your liking.
  • Is it a kind of shadow DOM element (a browser created / styled element, as in the screenshot)?

Enter image description here

  • Restyle (override) to your liking with your own CSS style, like this one.