Presuming resolved by T11120.

@nemobis, I previously warned you about the tone of your interactions with the upstream in T5908#84888.

I don't see how Herald rules are related to the provided "example use case"

Just wanted to chime in that I've just encountered this as well. Just did an upgrade, and hundreds (possibly thousands?) of old commits are somehow being reprocessed and are pushed to the feed. It's been processing for a couple of hours now, no idea how much work remains....

I think most of this is in reasonable shape now, at least for the moment.

T11335 talks about a hosting system (gitblit) that adds meta-data to refs/meta/ refs, which show up in phabricator as real commits.

Can you configure gitblit not to expose these refs, or have phabricator observe the github repo (Assuming these refs don't make it there?)?

It appears that trackOnly really does only apply to branches and not refs

Since there doesn't appear to be a way to reproduce this at HEAD, we can't move forward.

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.

Ipsilon support would almost certainly take the form of an auth adapter. Phabricator auth adapters are not restricted to OAuth2: they include LDAP, username/password, OAuth1, and Persona (and T814 has examples that include HTTP Basic / Kerberos-via-HTTP Basic).

Just to make sure that I was clear enough in my initial request - Ipsilon is not an OAuth2 provider in the same way Github or Asana is.

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.

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.

Community Resources has some other working examples of auth extensions and Adding New Classes explains how to write them today. But there's no formal support until T5055 / T5447.

Phabricator is looking at all refs, and gitblit is recording some information as refs, which interact strangely.

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 can understand that, thank you for responding and explaining.

We aren't interested in maintaining this since we haven't seen other interest in it, but feel free to add it to Community Resources.

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

I spent pretty much the whole afternoon yesterday getting "All Day" events working properly without getting a result I was happy with (some of this was untangling date controls, which will probably come upstream eventually).

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.

There may be some extra steps here, but I think this covers what we did. Unfortunately this spans several months, and I'm not in a position to setup another install and walk through this to test.

In T11333#186009, @chad wrote:

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

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

What are the minimum set of steps on a new, clean install we can follow to reproduce the error your seeing locally?

Many thanks for this explanations :)

• Don't show commits twice in task details.

Actually probably just going to merge this into T3612. We want to eventually allow image commenting in the "lightbox" UI. With that clicking on "inline image" would bring up a full lightbox, not just a dialog.

If this is a feature request, we require a root problem. See Describing Root Problems for how to find the core problem. I understand you want it bigger, but I have no idea why or how you use Pholio. I have concerns arbitrarily enlarging it does not solve your core problem and that any random number chosen will again be bumped into by another install. Functionally, we don't intend Pholio to be used as your using it, that is, if you're highlighting large areas, these aren't details, they're features. Features should be discussed just as a normal comment.

Peoples now have a big monitors, and i think what increase height from 200 to 400px help all to get greater usability with Pholio module.

Did you mean to file this as a feature request?

I misplaced the end of the if (!$task_graph->isEmpty()) block

I misplaced the end of the if (!$task_graph->isEmpty()) block

But I still kind of think that if you generated a link to your own content you should be able to navigate to it, so it seems reasonable that either:

• remote URI that start with pre-configured base URI are considered valid
• "View Raw File" generates a local URI relative to base URI to avoid this check

I guess I can phrase that differently, then.
Consider that this services as an exception and the associated error message is extremely confusing:

• It specifies a URI that is valid and is not external to my server and calls it both remote and invalid, which is odd
• The URI that is surfaced is a long and very internal-looking one, clearly generated by Phabricator itself
• There is no explanation given as to why this is considered invalid.

This isn't a bug. List HTTP and HTTPS if you want to use these protocols.

Ok cool.

Ohhh, sorry, I missed that this is a service call thing rather than a redirect/workflow thing.

I was thinking custom field that just pings a callback url was what I was thinking.

You could write a CustomField that was hidden and had some static prefilled value for each form, but I think you might have some amount of trouble getting the UX to work well after the task was created (e.g., you can put some "link back to the thing you came from" in the properties, but not easily render a banner at the top of the page with an obvious "continue" button, nor easily detect that the user just created the object and seamlessly redirect).

hey all,

I guess this is customfieldable already, isn't it? There will be weirdness with checking state in the field / the interface doesn't explicitly support it, but I'm pretty sure it's doable.

Some general sorts of thoughts:

I'll have my laptop with me next week, should be easy for me to clean up CSS stuff on the road.

Visually, I have a hard time picking out the current day/week.

Use of link color to convey state is weird?

I'll CSS in the event details later, but wanted this to go full width if possible.