| maxie | |
| Mar 11 2016, 10:22 AM |
| F1172085: Screen Shot 2016-03-12 at 6.46.10 AM.png | |
| Mar 12 2016, 2:50 PM |
| F1172076: Screen Shot 2016-03-12 at 6.31.30 AM.png | |
| Mar 12 2016, 2:50 PM |
In our Phabricator architecture, we use Phriction for extended documentation of our Phabricator projects which are also hierarchical structured.
Therefore, it would be helpful if Phriction articles could be created and edited either by arcanist or by version control (for instance, Bitbucket allows editing the wiki pages via Git). Besides the faster editing it would also allow to create templates for hierarchical structures of Phriction pages.
Thanks for the feature request! This feature request doesn't have the information we need to move forward, so I'd like to start by trying to understand why it doesn't. Specifically, it does not describe the root problem you are facing, and instead asks for a specific feature.
We've tried to make it very clear how important root problems are, and how to describe root problems to us. Despite this, we still get a lot of feature requests like this one which don't describe root problems. This is bad for us (it takes time away from development) and for users (it takes much more time to go back and forth than just give us the information in the first place). We'd really like to improve this process, so maybe you can help us understand where things broke down.
Here's what we're expecting: users submit a feature request using this form, which links to relevant documentation and reiterates how important root problems are:
The documentation tries to be very clear about how important problem descriptions are:
Did you see all this, but not understand what we're asking for? Or maybe something else went wrong? How could we improve this workflow to make it work better?
Thank you again, I try to describe the situation more clearly.
Background:
Besides project description, we use not only Project descriptions but also Phriction to document our projects and workflows (because project descriptions do not allow hierarchical pages like in Phriction) in our Phabricator architecture.
Problem:
Most developers miss a possibility to access and edit Phriction articles via the command line (in our case, it would be cool to have a possibility to access Phriction articles via arc or Git). The majority of developers prefer to work on the command line instead of a browser because they can work faster and easier that way. This would provide a possibility to work with template pages for Phriction articles (which is a common scenario for us).
"Feature doesn't exist" or "We'd use it" isn't to us a description of a root problem. Let's say for sake of argument, we'll never build that solution into Phabricator. Can you describe what problem you are having using Phabricator and let us determine how to solve it in a way that benefits the most users.
I understand that my description is not a root problem, but I don't know how I could make it clearer.
The situation that we are currently facing is that we could improve, speed up and automatize our workflows if it would be possible to create and edit Phriction articles via command line.
@cburroughs: thank you
@epriestley: If you say, you could make it easier to pull/push wiki pages via arc, this means there is a possibility to do this?
This request doesn't describe a root problem and we don't seem to be making progress toward one, so we can't move forward on it.
It's possible that we could eventually figure out the root problem or problems by continuing to ask questions, but we don't have the resources to do this as part of free support. It's not sustainable for us to spend a lot of time asking clarifying questions when we receive a request, and we've already dedicated a large amount of time to trying to understand this one. It's also unfair to other users who do follow the instructions and submit clear requests with proper context.
I understand that this is probably frustrating since you've spent time writing this request and tried to describe your problem. It's frustrating for us, too, since we've spend time reading, replying, and trying to understand it. I'm sorry we weren't able to understand your request. If there's anything we could improve about the documentation or process to make it more clear what we need, please let us know.