I think we're more-or-less at the point where the existing Nuance code is about as internally modernized as it's going to get, so there isn't a great deal of remaining obvious technical debt to pay down.

Ahh, makes sense now :)

In T12739#224605, @avivey wrote:

Why is this Nuance and not Doorkeeper?

In T12739#224607, @chad wrote:

GH Issues flow into Nuance and a human can decide whether to open it up as a Maniphest Task, similar to email. The end user can fully communicate an issue back to Phabricator without ever leaving their preferred source (email, Github, Twitter). Developers can stay in Phabricator and manage priorities, projects, workboards.

GH Issues flow into Nuance and a human can decide whether to open it up as a Maniphest Task, similar to email. The end user can fully communicate an issue back to Phabricator without ever leaving their preferred source (email, Github, Twitter). Developers can stay in Phabricator and manage priorities, projects, workboards.

Why is this Nuance and not Doorkeeper?

There's a typo in the headline, but I can't it :(

No, not updated yet.

This instance isn't updated yet, is it? We got that error still....

i should have kept a helper function in, but was worried we'd never find the callsites.

Given the modern realities of support, I don't actually think we'd be better off by making it easier to submit stack traces. We also explicitly don't want surprise patches.

Item in multiple queues would IMO confuse the hell out of less-intelligent (me).

Nuance currently allows an Item to be in multiple Queues, but I think we don't need to allow this and can simplify things a bit by putting items in exactly one queue at all times.

Status here:

Will support of anonymous users be a good fit for this ?

I expect that kind of stuff to be a good fit, yeah.

Do you expect handling alert triage to be a good fit for Nuance?

In T8434#121407, @20after4 wrote:

Regarding editing policy on a task: I'm not sure how to do it but I think what might be desirable is that the task author has some sort of limited ability to comment on a 'security' task but not really edit it in any significant way after submission.

The form templating stuff sounds really cool.

Reduce PolicyRule Hackiness + Support Templating Custom Fields would probably serve our needs well and it would also be useful, I'd imagine, for other installs to implement their own custom access controls.

Oh, and on these cases:

The rest of Spaces is on more solid ground, now, so I'd like to keep working on a path forward here.

In T8434#118779, @epriestley wrote:

I'd ideally like to do this via T4411, but we could also meet halfway via T5681: that would let you write a "subscribers to this object" rule instead of needing to write a "subscribers to [explicitly, type in this object with your keyboard]" rule, which might simplify things a little bit, at least. (I assume the "type in this object" part is sort-of-automated via secret magic right now, at least some of the time, so maybe this is only very slightly nice-to-have.)