We'll probably look at adding an "Archive" state in addition to Published and Unpublished. That would remove it from most views.

Also, Phame appears to sort posts by descending post ID number so even if I write over an old draft with new content it's going to sort way down. This is more part of my usual workflow: write some content, decide against it being a good idea, can't delete, ???, write over?

I've fixed this but someone still left a draft on my internal blog that I can't now delete. I considered just writing over it but it preserves their username on the authorship.

This means that exploration by new users is irreversible and my list of draft grows monotonically and becomes progressively more cluttered over time.

Since T10477 was closed as a duplicate of this task but ctrl+f "delete" turns up nothing I guess I'll repost my comment here: I can't find any way to delete a Phame draft or post. This means that exploration by new users is irreversible and my list of draft grows monotonically and becomes progressively more cluttered over time. Because the URLs are prettified, it's also not clear how to use bin/remove to delete a post object or what the object ID might be.

@tycho.tatitscheff See T8656 or Planning.

Is support of ansi color possible in this harbormaster iteration ? I mean not only parse the ansi code but also generate a markup based on the color.
As far as I remenber it wasn't the case.

Finally, I can internet at 100% efficiency.

Unfortunately, this bug is reproducible on my installation by simply visiting the Diffusion URL, there are no other steps.

I did look at the page.

We're also about to select a source code hosting / project management tool, and Phabricator looks awesome but git-lfs support is a requirement for us!

I suppose that'll work for maniphest/paste/projects/etc., but the most recent case I had in mind involved dashboard panel edit policies... :/

See also:

This has been open for several months without forward progress.

It seems like this isn't reproducible in other environments. Feel free to file a new report if you are able to uncover more information in the future.

Note that those are the actual names of the tabs (not, say, some weird internal hash, as I thought at first glance), the list just isn't getting rendered properly:

This is real dumb, but I think it only creates a moderate inconvenience so I probably won't try to dig into it until we do the next iteration on dashboards.

That fix isn't retroactive, but should stop the problem in the future once it deploys. Thanks for the report!

Thanks, pretty sure that's the issue. Diff in a sec.

Yes. Forgot about that.

Did you select "Disable Mail" from the "Members" page after joining the project?

...except that I can't reproduce it locally. Hrrm..

This is probably the "implicit membership" edge leaking through. Should be an easy fix.

I'd like to wait for a better use case before trying to separate protocol filtering in link/redirection contexts. Linking to a wiki page or similar seems reasonable in footers, and there's diversity and some security complications in other affected contexts (today: object profile menus, footer links, core external redirects, "Link" custom fields, {nav} elements, OAuth callback URIs).

I don't anticipate ever building this. It would take months and only partially address a very narrow range of primarily operational use cases.

I can't reproduce this. Here's what I did:

The link is to "RobH changed Tabs from codfw206eqiad207 to codfw206eqiad207esams208ulsfo209." specifically

What does "formatted in a strange way" mean? Nothing stands out as incorrect on the page you linked.

"RobH set Tabs to ." is also a bit weird

Thanks for the discussion and for improving the clarity of my request.

I expect we'll do this eventually, but probably not until Workboards v4.

I do agree that commenting is usually done after reviewing the existing history. The concern expressed to me was that the extra navigational steps to get back to the workboard after commenting on a ticket were less pleasing than simply having a popover close. The only real reference I've got for this is that Trello allows viewing of the history and commenting within a popover... not that that is any justification unto itself.

You probably intended to post this in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/, the WMF Phabricator... This is the Phabricator Phabricator.

Basically, like @cspeckmim suggests, commenting without context isn't something we plan to add. We feel commenting when you make a edit, or commenting when reading the entire task are the two most common needs.

I believe you can enable commenting through EditEngine (Maniphest Form Configuration). Beyond that we have a rough "idea" of being able to embed any Phabricator page inside a dialog, which is a non trivial amount of work with Quicksand

If I comment on task I almost always need to review the previous comments made. That would mean loading the entire task comment/history into a dialog which doesn't seem meaningful. The only case for "commenting from a dialog" that I can imagine is if you need to poke it for an update without seeing previous history - doesn't sound like a strong use-case. Creating/editing is modifying the task state vs. the discussion happening on the task, which makes a little more sense to have in the context of a dialog/popover.

See Contributing Bug Reports for what we look for in a bug report. Specifically we need steps to reproduce the issue. If you're not sure if its a bug or other issue, and don't have steps to reproduce, please use the other Community Resources available for help.

The onboarding would be much easier, if Phabricator would offer a clear and detailed single document, describing and explaining the full Phabricator-based development process (along with rationale, advantages and disadvantages at each step). Something similar to this nice post, but more clear and more comprehensive.

I am solving this problem. Reason was in empty Callsign in setting repository. After I added callsing, revisions became openable for audits.