Hi @msatish! Please see Planning for help understanding planning and prioritization. Thanks!

Hi, when can we expect this feature to be available?

In T10939#175260, @epriestley wrote:

Pretty sure D15918 is the right/expected rule: if you're an owner of "CSS" and "CSS" is set to "Auto Review: Review Changes (Blocking)", it doesn't trigger for your revisions: you don't need someone else who owns CSS to unblock your changes. Let me know if that defies expectations.

This is being worked on in conjunction with T10939

Our expectation is to use custom input forms here.

Pretty sure D15918 is the right/expected rule: if you're an owner of "CSS" and "CSS" is set to "Auto Review: Review Changes (Blocking)", it doesn't trigger for your revisions: you don't need someone else who owns CSS to unblock your changes. Let me know if that defies expectations.

Have you seen the discussion in T8434?

This has been slightly streamlined, modern flow is to dump first:

I mostly have T8887 working, but there's currently no way for a package to be rendered unambiguously in Reviewers: ... or Subscribers: ... from the command line in a plain text commit message, so this may be a little more involved than I'd hoped. Everything works fine until you try to interact with a revision that has package relationships, then you get into trouble:

This isn't a bug, the block has a performance-motivated explanation in a TODO comment above it:

One also needs to patch libphutil/src/internationalization/PhutilTranslator.php:

diff --git a/src/internationalization/PhutilTranslator.php b/src/internationalization/PhutilTranslator.php
index 21e4620..dfbf729 100644
--- a/src/internationalization/PhutilTranslator.php
+++ b/src/internationalization/PhutilTranslator.php
@@ -165,6 +165,7 @@ final class PhutilTranslator extends Phobject {
       case 'en_P*':
       case 'en_R*':
       case 'en_A*':
+      case 'de_DE':
         list($singular, $plural) = $translations;
         if ($variant == 1) {
           return $singular;

In T6055#175114, @hvr wrote:

@metellius I tried your patch, but I hit the same issue; arc diff reports an Invalid or missing field "Test Plan"; I guess I need to tweak something in the commit msg parser... you didn't need that?

@metellius I tried your patch, but I hit the same issue; arc diff reports an Invalid or missing field "Test Plan"; I guess I need to tweak something in the commit msg parser... you didn't need that?

In T6055#175112, @metellius wrote:

the part in the reviewed-by field is in relation to another commit that makes it look like "Reviewed-by: ..." instead of "Reviewed by\n..."

It's been a long time since I looked at our custom patches, but I do believe this is the one that did it for us:

@metellius did you succeed patching phabricator? If so, how did you do it exactly? I tried with