Forgot to mention we're running stable week 34.

In T11335#186091, @avivey wrote:

Can you configure gitblit not to expose these refs, ...

In T11335#186057, @avivey wrote:

You can configure the repository track only value to not track refs/meta, which is apparently where gitblit records it's reflog.

In T11335#186057, @avivey wrote:

You can configure the repository track only value to not track refs/meta, which is apparently where gitblit records it's reflog.

It's a little concerning that gitblit doesn't host it's own code, instead relying on github. Regardless, I haven't yet found a public gitblit repo that I can point to for reproduction.

I have not been able to reproduce in phacility, and moving tasks around in our current install works correctly.

In T11333#186012, @chad wrote:

We require bug reports be reproducible by the reporter under our basic "free support" model. The basic idea is it's better if you spend 1-2 hours than us spending 1-2 days guessing the problem though back and forth questioning.

One thing you could do is test a current version of Phabricator with your steps on http://phacility.com with a free test instance.

FWIW, there are the transaction logs (via conduit) for a task that was experiencing the issue.

In T11333#186009, @chad wrote:

For example, 11.9.0 sounds like a Milestone, not a subproject. Is that correct?

For context, I'm trying to convert some projects over to use milestones. Previously we were just using several independent projects. What I'm trying to do is change the default column in the milestone, so I can bulk move tasks from a workboard column in the 'old' project, and have them land in the right place.

In T10307#158056, @chad wrote:

Rule #1 of bug reporting:

• Update your install.

FWIW, I'm running 2015 week 43.

I opened T9689 for the unit test failures, which appeared to be an issue with having auth.email-domains configured.

In D14318#160427, @epriestley wrote:

I don't want to bring any changes to "Reports" usptream; it's basically frozen until it is replaced by Facts (T1562).

• Remove used line of code

I'm also happy to fix up this patch myself, if anyone can give me some hints as to what I did wrong :)

I've attached D14359 which is running in our local phab instance and mostly works. While the rule works as intended, the status doesn't want to display properly. I don't expect anyone to accept this as-is, but I thought I'd share as a starting point for anyone who has the time and knowledge to do it The Right Way.

Attached the patch we're using locally, and seems to do what we want without impacting performance.

I'm experiencing something a little different using a custom select field.

In T5793#108195, @epriestley wrote:

If anyone does this, I'd be interested in feedback on how it goes.