Broadly, if comments have the new "stacked action" UI (an "Add Action..." dropdown, allowing you to take multiple actions at once), the expectation is that they support the new drafts too. This includes Maniphest at HEAD.

I can't reproduce this issue by following the steps in the report:

These unit tests take a while. I'll run it on the final revision

(See general churn in T9905, T9908, T9132.)

Oh -- are you creating these from the workboard? Never mind, in that case.

I don't understand the difference between this and T9936. Aren't they aiming to solve the same problem (difficulty remembering what failed during arc diff when running arc land)?

The expectation is that you'll remember what the issue was, since arc diff printed the specific problems earlier and you already explicitly confirmed that you wanted to continue despite the issues.

As a workaround, you might be able to put aliases in /etc/arcconfig (e.g., symlink that to something which is version controlled) and use ~/.arcconfig for credentials only.

After "thinking carefully" about this I am going to do the lazy / less bold approach and we can sort it out later so you can have this back. :3

("Not really." in the sense of "I don't have anything in mind" -- I agree that it might feel weird.)

Not really. I was going to do this:

I'm going to try to bludgeon this in for EditEngine, we can refine it in Projects v3 if I ham it up.

I think D14016 actually fixed this?

I don't plan to implement this. We haven't seen other interest in it and your use case seems fairly unusual.

See Contributing Feature Requests for help writing a feature request.

Do you have a meaningful amount of configuration in your ~/.arcrc?

(If your time is valuable, we're happy to shoulder the entire burden of building a reproduction case and fish around for environmental problems at our consulting rate; see Consulting.)

Or, let me clarify: if you give us a running VM in EC2 with root credentials, that's useful.

If I could provide a virtual machine image of some sort that shows the issue, would that be useful?

When submitting a feature request, please describe the root problem you are trying to solve. See Contributing Feature Requests.

Can you provide more details on exactly how this is a bug?

This does not describe a bug with Phabricator. For help filing a bug, see Contributing Bug Reports.

So - a technical team lead would encounter this.

I don't think any of those actually specify the favicon... what does this return (with the right domain)?

Are there any more details that might be useful?

I've marked D14699 as fixing this, but it only applies to the EditEngine form, see T9905.

Hrrm, double header in the quick create menu is a little weird. Maybe I'll just drop the first header completely, I think it's fairly easy to figure out what the menu is doing.

Notes for me / the curious:

I'm not a big fan of haunt mode and think it's near the top of the "dumbest features" pile, but it's easy to bring everywhere if you're more of a fan. And maybe we're stuck with doing that anyway one Differential folds into EditEngine.

Let me at least see if I can tweak the text a little bit, I think this rule can be made more clear than it is.

The logic is "if they've seen them before".

Git 2.5 is less than 6 months old and we haven't seen other interest in this, so it will probably be a while before we get to it, but it's reasonable for us to try to accommodate this better.

I'm going to merge this into T5953, which discusses building a general bulk import workflow (from CSV, LDAP, an external system, etc).

Alright, I'll just replace "Add Projects" with "Change Projects".

From elsewhere:

This does not describe a bug in Phabricator. See Support Resources and Contributing Bug Reports.

I just think this isn't very good:

Yeah, just a mobile issue.