> Your new version no longer has the bug we are talking about. I don't know why you are trying to pretend it was never there though?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

    1. I posted the article last week on my site
    2. I noticed it was on HN today (yay)
    3. I looked at the parent's comment
    4. The parent's description isn't what happens with the original code
    5. I made the comment you're replying to on HN to address their concerns and included a refactored version of the original condition for clarity then said I pushed the updates
    6. I pushed the updates to both git and my site so both match up

There's nothing to pretend about and there's no bug because both versions of the code do the same thing, the 2nd version is just easier to read and requires less `uv` knowledge to know what happens when `uv lock` runs with an invalid lock file. The history is in the HN comment I wrote and git history.

It doesn't make sense to leave the original code in the blog post and then write a wall of text to explain how it worked fine but here's a modified version for clarity. Both versions of the code have the same outcome which is ensuring there's a valid lock file before syncing.

What would you have done differently? I saw feedback, saw room for improvement, left an audit trail in the comments and moved on.

Here's the commits https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/commit/d1b7b9... and https://github.com/nickjj/docker-django-example/commit/a12e2... btw.