Squash

This product reinforces a mindset that I find harmful.<p>Where I work, teams of developers are responsible for products -- we all own the quality and robustness of our product's code. If the application is broken, why would you only email the person or pair who wrote the particular line of code that excepted? Am I supposed to pretend broken code is not my problem unless I personally wrote it?<p>Development is a collaborative activity. If a product is broken, the whole team needs to know, so the whole team can fix it.

This has a big (but easy to fix) security flaw. Don't deploy this publicly without changing the secret token or else you are effectively publishing your app code for analysis by attackers.<p><a href="https://github.com/SquareSquash/web/blob/master/config/initializers/secret_token.rb#L21" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/SquareSquash/web/blob/master/config/initi...</a><p>More broadly, if you're writing an open source rails app <i>please</i> don't commit a hard-coded secret_token into the repo or session fixation attacks are trivial.

I can't watch the video right now, and as a result I have no idea what this actually <i>is</i> (despite being able to read about all the features).<p>Fewer e-mails sounds good, but it doesn't mean much to me if I don't know what the product is.

Also see: <a href="https://github.com/SquareSquash/web" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/SquareSquash/web</a><p>Interesting FAQ full of the developer preemptively defending design decisions.

Another open-source alternative is Sentry (<a href="https://getsentry.com/" rel="nofollow">https://getsentry.com/</a>), which supports multiple languages and frameworks. A hosted version is also available.<p>The Ruby support in Sentry currently isn't quite as good as the Python support, but it's not bad at all, and constantly improving.

Interesting: With the whole 'marketing' page I expected a hosted service (and was looking for the pricing page), not an opensource project. Looks great!

&#62;Squash uses git blame to figure out whose fault it was<p>Questionnable assumption, to say the least.<p>Still, not a bad idea. You could also send a file to the people who contributed most of the culprit file.

I'm surprised at all the criticism over the blame mechanism. It's clear the goal here is to avoid the diffusion of responsibility that occurs when dozens of people are getting the same exception emails. And in any case, what kind of developer worth his salt is offended by blamed for a bug? I mean sure if someone is being an asshole about it, or if they jumped to the conclusion that it was you when you had nothing to do with it, but if git blame algorithm flags you then what is there to be offended about? Surely we all accept that good software can not be created by tiptoeing around the facts and occurrences of the software development process?<p>This looks like fantastic software, it's the most exciting thing I've come across in several weeks or maybe even months, and I'm looking forward to trying it out.

This is all fine and dandy, but there's too much emphasis on finding the "engineer at fault" and blaming.

The only thing that instantly tells me what squash actually is is in the &#60;title&#62; tag. Which chrome truncates to ~30 characters.<p>Is it a pest control system that doesn't send me emails?

The focus on finding "who's at fault" is going to immediately put people on the defensive, I'd imagine.

If this lives up to even half of its potential, it will be fantastic.<p>Also, routing exceptions using git blame isn't about placing blame on individuals for defects, it's about automatically managing and routing the massive quantity of exceptions that can occur in a large rails app with many users and many developers.

First you have a bug in your javascript somewhere. I use a real mouse and if I scroll to the bottom of the page via the scroll wheel it jerks me back up a few pixels.<p>Second, as others have mentioned, I loaded this page, scanned for a few seconds, and still really had no idea wtf Squash was.<p>Finally, this phrase: "Squash uses git blame to figure out whose fault it was" is really terrible. This assumes that someone is at "fault" for introducing a bug. Not all software organizations embrace this concept and instead consider bugs being introduced as a team-wide or process failure, and do not make a point to assign blame to defects to individuals. Be careful not to shoehorn your own views of methodology into your marketing.

The name, seeing a word like Symbolication and having just watched an Onion video made me think this was a joke at first, even while watching the video.

All the breath &#38; pops in the microphone is really annoying. You should re-record the audio using a pop filter or something?

Have you considered using a professional voice over for the screencast? It will help you look more trustworthy.

Nice app - a great alternative to some of the popular hosted services. Great work guys.

Just as a heads up, I cannot scroll to the bottom of your page. I keep bouncing as I hit the bottom and end up with 'Start using Squash' being cut in half. Screen res: 2560x1440

Looks good, I just wished it integrated with Github instead of having it's own UI. Github already has all the functionality the squash UI webserver has.

Nice, going to give this a try, along with errbit! (<a href="https://github.com/errbit/errbit" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/errbit/errbit</a>)

So this is open sourced by Tim at Square. We're hiring (-: <a href="https://squareup.com" rel="nofollow">https://squareup.com</a>

In that video, what extras does he have installed on his Terminal? Anyone?

<i>Symbolication</i> is the ugliest word I've heard this year. It sounds like disembowel and embolism put together.<p>Also it looks like they found a font to abuse in exactly the same way that Comic Sans kills aesthetics, but with a different name and a slight update.