I think I never actually enabled HSTS on this host. I've enabled it now. Clients should refuse to establish HTTP connections, mooting this.

I converted all the data destruction steps into a services wipe command. I'm planning to get the repo path stuff formalized too, then I'll update this with a simpler game plan.

I'm not, I just type secure.phabricator.com/T8820 into my browser.

This is likely fixed by further changes connected to T8726, which are currently out for review. I'll keep an eye on it.

It didn't, but nothing should be linking to http. How are you hitting HTTP links?

T8612 is probably related.

We could let specific "Important" badges generate a text tag like that but I'd like to be able to, e.g., award everyone who reports a bug a badge for it without turning every timeline into "Reported a Bug" on each comment.

Oh, yeah. That huge treatment might be good for "Administrator", "Employee" or object relationships ("Task Owner", "Task Author"), but feels pretty big for the more achivement-like "Made 100 Commits", "Registered for 5 years", "Contributed", things.

I was imagining something like this:

I know you don't provide support for writing third party extensions, but is it possible to do what I am trying to do with Doorkeeper currently? Basically I guess I need to define conditions which define what is published and where it is published to.

I don't want to do project/badge stuff yet, just an explicit "award this badge to this user" thing for now, but imagine maybe doing that in a future version.

We could maybe do exotic monograms (π) or multicharacter monograms (PKG123) but I generally like T5378 first, at least.

I suppose that makes sense. I really like having the popup box when you hover over monogram references but I suppose that T5378 could fix this as well.

(We only have ~30 reasonable monograms, most of which are used, and it's rare to need to refer to a package.)

Oh :(

Yes.

https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/adding_new_classes/

It's true. It's fair to say I was born for it.

We have one, Phrequent. This is a prototype and very far down the list of development priorities.

Personally, I'd much rather use Conpherence because I absolutely love mentions and find them very useful. Having said that, convincing 200+ others to use Conpherence is much more difficult.

It looks like the culprit is likely in first-party code:

That bump for the INSERT is expected when you enable the profiler -- it's just saving the profile itself (the page as a whole will run a bit slower, too, which is normal/expected).

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

Sorry, we don't offer support with third-party custom development. See "Supported Issues" here:

Ah, it sounds like you really want something like "Create Supertask" -- the opposite of "Create Subtask" -- rather than something more like "Create Sibling Task", which is where related/followup were previously headed.

There are some, uh, creative things you could do if the problem is limited in scope to a few specific conflicts, like write a Herald rule like this:

I think this is just the same as T5046. You can use SSH, or wait for a fix for T5046.

This report doesn't have enough information for us to reproduce the problem you're experiencing or help you resolve it.

I'm going to merge this into T8345, which discusses this and some other relationships. My general concern here is that I don't want to add a large number of very similar relationship types which differ from one another only slightly. That said, "Followup" is probably the most compelling new relationship type discussed there.

Just to clarify, you aren't actually using Phabricator yet, and are just identifying this as a potential concern -- is that right?

I created OpenStack, you should have permission to edit it. Feel free to change the name/icons/description/permissions/etc -- the restrictions on project creation are just because they're relatively long-lived objects and users poking around / testing things loved creating random test projects.

No, I fixed it manually.

Cool, glad to hear things are working again.

A third case is that, as far as I can tell:

Details inline, but I think the shortest path to getting what you want here is:

You can add such a field yourself:

Those service calls look fine (~4.5ms -- about the same as this install) and the 150ms discrepancy between the 654ms on the network tab vs 500ms of observed wall time isn't too far out of line (I see about half that discrepancy on this install, but services can't do true end-to-end timing and at least some of that time is spent saving Services data after the timer stops).

It looks like you have to configure an application key -- is that right? Did you just hard-code yours? That might be a possible technical hurdle, since other OTP auth doesn't require configuration so we don't have anywhere convenient to store it. Or I might just be misunderstanding how the verification works.

Oh, so we just need a query language to make this work? Do you think it would be better to build the query language first?

So sometimes selecting "A, B, C" as a query means "A AND (B OR C)", and sometimes it means "A AND B AND C", depending on whether B and C are from different projects?

When you search tasks, do you expect to have separate query UIs for "Marketing" tasks and "Development" tasks, or a single query UI (with support for querying by either field) for both?