Hmm, actually... I think this is the fault of a custom extension I am using to upload files to S3.

• -c seems to come from 1.7.2.
• --no-color and --color=never are probably two acceptable alternative methods for writing -c color.ui=never.
• --no-column seems to be an acceptable alternative for writing -c column.ui=never, but may not have existed until 1.7.11.

Wording on this feed story isn't quite right, not sure if that's new or not:

@angie, I added you to Community so you should have sweeping powers on this install now.

@nipunn, can you please reset the object policy on this task so that we can move it to the correct column on the workboard?

"Close" makes sense to me. And, yeah, I agree that long-term some kind of "All Badges" link that leads to, like:

I wouldn't mind having these somewhere on profile though, even it it's hidden by an "all badges" link or something.

Yeah, I sort of wonder "beta" wise if we should add the ability to "Close" a badge, which essentially locks it from (easily) adding new members. So a temporary badge like "Attended First Meetup" gets assigned out to 10 people, then closed & locked. Those could still show. "Archive" is still essentially in my mind, "delete from the UI".

If you know you had three badges yesterday and then visit your profile and see only two badges, there's no way to figure out what happened (without examining the edit history of every badge), if we completely hide them, is there?

I'll probably kill them everywhere, since you can dig them up in ApplicationSearch in Badges if you're really curious.

So this is just T6802#93770?

User (or project) based policies produce useful error messages if you can't view an object:

We also now have Describing Root Problems as a guide to help people give us more details on issues they face. It's important for us to understand root issues so we can be sure we're correctly solving your problem.

I don't know what this ticket is about. If it's a bug report, please provide steps to reproduce per Contributing Bug Reports. If it's a feature request, please describe the core problem per Contributing Feature Requests.

Thanks @epriestley, much appreciated!

The Git issues have been resolved (see T9657).

This has been live for about a month without any major issues cropping up.

Resolved by D14420.

Broad update here after T9132:

No problem -- it's easier for us to merge duplicates than split tasks apart, so it's not bad to err on the side of filing new tasks.

In T9946#148060, @epriestley wrote:

I'm going to merge this into T9491, since that's the existing task covering the primary issue here.

T7676 is also somewhat related.

I'm going to close this out since the infrastructure work it describes is now substantially complete, although a great deal of work remains to be done to bring this infrastructure to all applications and implement the full set of features it enables (mostly described in tasks blocked by this one).

I'm going to merge this into T9491, since that's the existing task covering the primary issue here.

First approaches that come to mind, for whatever that's worth:

Is phabricator the name of the user running the daemons? Is that the same as the user running the web server? Permissions between these users can be a problem.