Yes. The diff is a relatively small amount of the work I must do to respond to this issue: install ElasticSearch, configure it in the way you describe, reproduce the issue, write or apply a change, verify it actually fixes the problem, go read through the documentation enough that I'm confident the fix is the best available fix and that we've understood the issue reasonably well.

Even if I'd provide the diff?

(Just to set expectations, anything which isn't coming in through Support Pacts may take a very long time for us to get to.)

• D19634 allows reviewers to mark their own inlines as "Done" before they submit them. This addresses the case where you want to leave a non-actionable inline (like "This is much-improved.") but feel like leaving an inline like this is imposing on the author because they "must" check it off.
• D19635 marks the author's own inlines as "Done" by default. They may un-mark them if they prefer (e.g., actually want to leave themselves a TODO). This addresses the case where authors feel like they "must" check off every comment, so they either reply in two passes (one to submit; one to check off all their own replies) or avoid replying.

With D11419 implemented, is it possible to now allow Herald rules to be triggered on a cron (even a very simple 'daily' option would be good)?

contentID on Document should probably not be nullable. We can generate a Document PHID first, save the Content with the right Document PHID, then save the Document with the content ID. Deleted/moved/stub documents still have Content, I'm pretty sure -- oh, except we can't do, this because Content uses documentID, not documentPHID. So maybe kick the can down the road.

Oh, and also to the original use case, I'll at least add some kind of warning for this since "silently skip some patches" isn't a good behavior. I'm open to adding some other hint mechanisms on top of this later so linters can better pick which patch wins, but would like to motivate it with some specific, surgical examples. The original example, where one linter removes debugging code and one linter reformats it, is a good starting point: in this case, "remove" should have greater strength than "reformat" and we'd prefer to discard the reformat patch and apply only the removal patch.

I'll plan to make these changes:

I'm going to try to rewrite our linters to emit minimal fixes and try that
out. I do think that will make the conflicts nearly nonexistent.

I think adding the "requirements of a custom linter" and possibly also
adding verification of original text matching the byte range for fix
application should still be addressed, though.

After D19615, callers to harbormaster.sendmessage can specify "format": "remarkup" to get "details" rendered as remarkup (including {Fxxx}) instead of plain text.

The unit test results also don't currently show on individual builds, which is a little whack?

See T13189#240682 for some planning on the Unit Test result table.

See PHI710. This is a request for richer lint/unit results. It's likely entangled with T13088 but can probably be planned.

(Feature request with no support mana.)

I expect to add flags like "this doesn't block undrafting" and "this build doesn't matter" soon, and then possibly refine those. I'd consider revisiting this after those deploy, but am not excited about formalizing the idea of "only some of your tests failed so it's okay" or adding a check for each build (since this won't scale very far). The tooltip is reasonable but I'll just turn that into a note on T13088.

(Feature request with no support mana and no discussion.)

Feature request with no support mana and no discussion / unique insight.

Nothing really actionable here.

This is reasonable to build eventually, but there's currently no support mana behind it and this task doesn't have any unique context or discussion.

No support mana behind this and no unique information in the task.

This isn't an actionable task so I'm banishing it to the shadow realm.

We don't have any support mana behind this request, it's a good candidate for third-party development, and there's no unique information in this task so I'm just going to close it out.

This doesn't have a repro and will probably be fixed via rewrite / modernization in T13077 anyway.