this relies on the "run with token as root" extension (https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Build+Token+Root+Plugin) which mostly bypasses other authentication mechanisms. This isn't that much of a problem in our environment, but is clearly non-optimal

yeah, there is an option to enable building via a specific URL and a GET request. Cool

after a deeper look it seems there might be an option to use a token for this. Let me play around with this a bit more

I suspect that others don't need parameters in the kickoff process? Let me look into it. Maybe we have not explored Jenkins in detail.

We're targeting jenkins. We just need to kick off a jenkins job.

plain old www-url-normal-web-form-encoded

T11102 is identical

In T11367#187161, @epriestley wrote:

Phlux should probably be on the chopping block too since Almanac pretty much obsoleted it in Phacility production.

I'm hesitant to axe it because Sitevars were so useful at Facebook as a flexible, general-purpose tool, but I don't currently have any use cases in mind for it that I'm particularly excited about.

In T8298#187157, @BYK wrote:

@eadler - I'd like to remind you that there are 3 patches waiting for review right now. They have been ...

I don't work for phacility. I, like you, occasionally contribute code as well as administer at this point 5 different copies of phabricator. Sorry for curt tone above.

In T11367#187111, @hach-que wrote:

Users don't have anything to do with Phragment? Unless I'm misunderstanding something?

In T8298#187116, @davidhodeffi wrote:

can you please raise the severity for this issue ? It is really hard to work like that
when renaming a file 'svn mv'. for now we are just committing the code and using an Audit.

In T11367#187106, @hach-que wrote:

Phragment is super out of date and FYI, hasn't seen any usage from me for a while. I don't know if anyone else is using it, but you can probably feel free to just delete the whole thing since it's a prototype anyway.

reopening due to additional details

In T10939#176633, @Luke081515.2 wrote:

General question: Why is the owners option "Add as reviewer (blocking)" if an owner uploads a revision? I know that this is expected, but why? For example at Wikimedia we currently have the system, that every change needs a review from an "owner" before the patch gets merged, so it's not useful, if an owner of the package uploads a change, and no reviewers get added. Maybe the a compromise may be a setting, where you can choose, if a package gets added as reviewer too, if the author of the revision is an owner too? I think that would help all.

See also T6549 and T9515

I think it would be better not to fallback at all and raise a setup warning. We'll likely have other issues in the future for not using the native driver.

We're seeing an identical issue on our install. What version of MySQL are you using? Maybe we can work together and figure out how to get Emoji to work!

I just added a new macro to our instance though