Is adding a new project tag and "move on workboard" in the same set of stacked action a minor extension, or super hard?

Thank you very much, that worked as expected!

There exists a "quick prototype" implementing as an external page using bots and Conduit: https://github.com/kennyeni/phabricatorGantt

This is probably ultimately the same as T6878 -- T6878#167273 has the current plans here.

Sorry, we don't have the resources to help users debug setup and environmental issues which we can not reproduce. The documentation is extremely clear about this. See Support Resources. Bug reports must have clear, complete, self-contained reproduction steps. See Providing Reproduction Steps.

Thank you Evan!

I followed your instructions on a new, clean Phacility test instance, but the issue did not reproduce for me. Here's a screenshot:

Reproduction Steps

This report doesn't have enough information for us to help you solve the problem. See Providing Reproduction Steps for help with providing reproduction steps.

You can update the phabricator_user.user table and remove the isMailingList flag from the account, something like this:

Are there any plans on allowing changing account roles, say from mailing list account to regular user account?

Some of the changes associated with T4292/T10748 -- principally, D15742 -- have pushed this forward, although it doesn't really do anything yet:

Every service on secure is now supported by a redundant version in a separate AWS availability zone. Failover wouldn't be completely clean/automatic, but we could lose either node with zero data loss, and would have a very short path to promoting the remaining node as a full master.

secure is now running repositories in fully redundant multi-master mode. This appears to be working, although it has been live for about 20 minutes and survived about three pushes so far so I'm not yet brimming with confidence about it.

This got some progress over the weekend -- it dovetailed a bit with T4292, and I wanted to let the Phacility cluster sit on the new availability stuff for a little while. Upshot:

Makes sense!

OK.

Yeah nothing here is ringing "Phabricator bug", at least nothing we can solve directly, but maybe identify and test for. How are static resources from your server being delivered to the users? Do you use anything like mod_pagespeed or Rocket Loader, or a proxy?

I'm going to close this since the upstream is going in a different direction. There may be some confusion around diffusion and differential, but I think @chad wanted to use the term "project tags" for that.

@epriestley, ah! I get where you're going now, though I'm not sure why I missed it before. *Sips more coffee.* Sorry.

The upstream is moving to a direction where "Tags" are being used in situations where a project is being associated with a thing. This is because (I think) because people assumed objects could only be associated with a single project.

Yes, Ubuntu is very popular. We use Ubuntu ourselves. This very server is running Ubuntu.

I host phabricator on Debian with php7. And it works fine, except APCu caching.

Apparent temporary workaround if anyone hits this because they upgraded to Ubuntu 16.04. Not yet tested (since I'm still on 15.10 right now), but I have confirmed that the package repository in question is live and contains the proper packages.

@epriestley, oh, *THAT*. When people are running Linux servers, Ubuntu actually is one of the leading distros because of the ease of setup and use. According to w3techs, nearly 32% of all Linux servers are running Ubuntu. It's second only to Debian.

@CodeMouse92, I'm specifically curious about the claim I quoted: that Ubuntu 16.04 is a major platform for Phabricator hosts.

@epriestley, he's right, see the official Ubuntu 16.04 release notes. More info here and here.

OK I understand. Even if the current UX is not perfect, if implementing an improved version would result in a more fragile UX because the code is a lot more complex, then yes, the current situation is preferable.

The upstream is moving to a direction where "Tags" are being used in situations where a project is being associated with a thing. This is because (I think) because people assumed objects could only be associated with a single project.

Why not collapsing the diff in this case?

Ah I was wondering about this comment, but since it was explicitly hidden, I thought it wasn't the cause.

I'm merging this into T10691 under the assumption that the real root problem is the one described there (your users want to treat git push as "save a copy", not "publish").

Sorry, the comment "it seems the workflow breaks down" was referring to the auto-close that was occurring on feature branches and the inability (or at least I thought so) to keep the remote feature branch and the revision synchronized . @benjumanji's suggestion to turn off autoclose on branches outside of master/develop I think fixes my root problem.

@anthony-verge just edit the repo, scroll down, branch stuff is somewhere around there.

There's an inline comment, visible in the left margin of the left-hand diff. You previously collapsed it.

Maybe see also T3277. But it sounds like there's no actual problem here that isn't solved by running git branch -D slightly more often, and the root problem is a minor convenience issue, not a workflow breakdown? Everything works fine, you just don't want extra branches because you have to spend a few extra seconds cleaning them up later?

Why does the workflow break down?

Interesting, how can I turn off autoclose for certain branches?

I'm not sure if this solves your problem, but just switch off autoclose for some prefix? We just have autoclose on master, as we don't consider anything on any branch that isn't master as done.

Broadly, I lean toward this policy going forward: