Blocking is T5353
Mock is roughly T9520
Diff ... can't locate the task offhand.

Mostly I think these things are valuable at the Sprint/Milestone level, where you have daily/weekly meetings on the status of a Sprint (and where each task is, specifically). I'd agree they're less valuable at the macro level.

Points:

Points look great.

This stuff definitely all looks sweet -- I think we could do "drag an image onto a card to set it as a cover image" fairly cheaply and let it fall back to the first mock image if there's no cover set to give that some wider utility. I like that better than just picking random files out of comments.

Some of the Pholio stuff is motivated by thinking about v2 sometime down the road. Like having a "workboard" view of my designs and their status could be handy (shipped, needs more work, planned).

Pass with points and faces.

I often want to know when the last comment was on a task and who made it. This is a shortcut for digging through my emails; I want to be able to check boards and see if tasks have activity since I last touched them. Any chance of something like this making it in as an option?

rP080d838c693b by @chad is absolutely amazing. The workboard is way more useful when tasks are tagged with multiple projects. An example: If you head to Workboards , you can see cards having other tags.

Awesome work, that is a nice feature.

Not sure if this is the right place to request for this, in an earlier build, the cards have username of the task owner on it, which is convenient to do a quick search using Ctrl+F to find tasks by a particular username. In the latest stable build, usernames on the cards are replaced with user photos instead, which makes Ctrl+F by username impossible. I understand that "Advanced Filter" is a workaround, but it is less convenient.

It would be great if we could either bring back the username by default, or fix this so that we could configure the cards to show the usernames.

See T10333

One followup request from D14935: Show the workboard column along with the project. Obviously there is a space vs information value tradeoff, but if workboard columns are relevant anywhere wouldn't it be in Workboards? This was feedback from one of our product managers who looks at many different workbaords, not just a single team's.

T10469 is probably the best solution there.

In T4863#152912, @epriestley wrote:

• Diff/Mock: These are fairly straightforward, alhtough I'm not totally convinced that they're valuable. At least in my personal workflow, I don't imagine I'd be likely to ever use them, and I don't recall other requests for them offhand. I'm hesitant about building new hard-coded first-party application stuff, too, since we've made so much progress on getting rid of it. I could build this in a generic way, of course, but that makes it less straightforward.

To add some rationale to this, a slightly richer display (T7076's fine-grained information¹), and this task's exposing of that information would be quite helpful; I have built these both, with all the N+1 issues that come with the current implementation, into my installs. Workflows which place heavy emphasis on review, and may have a separate integrator doing merging, benefit from being able to see this, as it allows people to determine whether or not they need to take action.

For instance, a task which has at least one attached revision with requested changes is mostly uninteresting to all but the submitter (though a PM may want to prod the submitter to revise and re-submit). A task with at least one revision in need of review is a good prompt to the rest of the team to perform review: exposing this in the card allows you to discern the forest of possibly higher-level tasks, from the trees of every individual revision² in Differential. A task where all attached revisions have been approved is a good hint to integrators that a quick merge would result in genuine Progress and everyone becoming happier.

¹: As explained in T7076#113881, there are corner-case difficulties to determining this information, but even a 90-95% cut would be a drastic improvement for many workflows.
²: I'll concede that this is a larger issue for workflows which use 'micropatches' in the Linux kernel / git-scm.org workflow, as described in T7076, but think other workflows still benefit. For instance, D16316 may not look interesting in and of itself when looking at the packages view, but if this were exposed in a task card, seeing that T8116 depends on it may prompt you to review it, where you wouldn't necessarily have done so before.

Does this ticket request include displaying Status of each Task on the Workboard display?

any customization.

Hi Chad,

I think your reply is : "any customization for Workboard cards is part of this ticket".

If not already part of this ticket, please note my request is to add/display **Status** Text/Icon on the respective card, on the Workboard.

Appreciate it!

How can we make the title and description more clear?

I second this:

In T4863#164542, @zhiyuchen wrote:

Not sure if this is the right place to request for this, in an earlier build, the cards have username of the task owner on it, which is convenient to do a quick search using Ctrl+F to find tasks by a particular username. In the latest stable build, usernames on the cards are replaced with user photos instead, which makes Ctrl+F by username impossible. I understand that "Advanced Filter" is a workaround, but it is less convenient.

It would be great if we could either bring back the username by default, or fix this so that we could configure the cards to show the usernames.

I also always wanted to do a Ctrl+F by user name. I didn't know username was shown in workboards before. If it was, I'd love to see it back.

No plan to continue on this?

This isn't an actionable task. It covers too much ground, describes too many features, and most of it lacks compelling use cases.

T13074 describes some actionable work, some of which is adjacent.

Essentially all feature development on this project is now coming from paid support pacts. If you have a problem that you believe fits somewhere into the huge scope this task implies and want it solved in the upstream, buy a support pact and describe your use case.