u wot m8 ill +1 u

Does your /maniphest/ look like this?

Select "Tasks" under "Search For".

It's been moving out of Config and into Applications gradually and I want to have ~all of it in Applications eventually, a lot of it just predates Applications.

Remarkup does have multiple rendering modes. There are currently three: email-text (used for text email bodies), email-html (used for html email bodies) and html (used elsewhere).

Broadly, the behavior of fields can not currently be dependent on the repository a revision belongs to.

Yeah, I'm planning to convert the "Clone As" setting to "optional, unique repository name" and use it as an identifier in URIs if it's set.

This is approximately filed as T5307. The workaround right now is:

(The dialog might also be inaccurate if the link was actually on a dashboard panel.)

I could imagine this, purely motivated by flavor:

Yes, but it's real dumb:

One other thing we might want to consider is making "Prototype" more prominent, just in the hope of reducing upstream support burden a little. We could link it to the "Prototype" docs too, perhaps.

A general case of this is:

Ah, I did something wrong earlier and can replicate this in Firefox on OSX (40.0.3).

You should be able to configure this in:

The handling of this error will be improved by T9132.

If there's some way to arrive here without purposefully following a link to it or entering it into the address bar, we'll fix that. Short of that, this is behaving as intended.

This is expected, and working as intended. You can not create objects which you could not view or edit.

This is intentional, and the expected behavior.

^^ yuh?

I think the primary use case for this UI is editing the value (that's what I'm trying to do about 98% of the time I end up here, at least), so it seems weird to bury that control. On some pages, like differential.fields, it would be buried very deeply if we moved it after the table.

For locked stuff we should probably just not show the "Value" control for most controls. (I think we show it because it's useful for some config that has special controls, but I'm not sure; could also just be something I missed.)

That stuff will deploy on ~Saturday, new UX is roughly this:

(This should deploy in the cluster on Saturday, give or take.)

It's very hard for us to prioritize work which doesn't actually solve real problems, or where we don't understand the greater need. This is why we ask users to describe problems and avoid hypotheticals in the guide describing how to file good feature requests.

What are you trying to accomplish?

RECIPIENTS
cspeckmim (Christopher Speck)

• Self Mail: This recipient is the user whose actions caused delivery of this message, but they have set preferences so they do not receive mail about their own actions (Settings > Email Preferences > Self Actions).
• Forced by Herald: This recipient was added by a "Send me an Email" rule in Herald, which overrides some delivery settings.

Now complete, although not fully deployed in all cases:

I think the automated export flow probably looks something like this: