(@yelirekim, just a heads up since whatever comes of this might impact you somehow.)

Great! It looks like we're down from about 18K to 3K on repo001 too, so it appears that this pretty much works as expected.

If you don't like the @mention-implies-CC behavior, you can disable it by applying this patch to your install:

In T11471#190079, @chad wrote:

I don't consider this to be a bug and any fix would likely lead to additional user confusion over "magic".

This has promoted to stable and doesn't seem like a contentious change so I don't currently anticipate any need to keep this open or revisit it.

Personal Herald rules do not run for disabled users, so disabling a user will disable all of their personal rules.

I also don't necessarily consider this a bug (I think a human explicitly @mention-ing a user definitely should add them again, and that quoting someone is pretty close to mentioning them, and that reasonable users could probably expect either behavior, and perhaps that the "add them again" behavior is more obvious or more expected) but T11035 discusses this and some other behaviors which have varying amounts of grey area.

The use case in that linked task is "using Remarkup to demonstrate the behavior of a different markup language", which isn't something we expect Remarkup to support.

The example is pretty descriptive, I'd say. Because of linking to the description of that exact part of the word.

Why do you want to link part of a word?

What specific steps can I follow to reproduce this issue? See Providing Reproduction Steps for help.

slightly related: there's some confusing naming in the result for harbormaster.querybuildables:

I don't consider this to be a bug and any fix would likely lead to additional user confusion over "magic".

I've used a mac for ~6 years now and still get annoyed that Finder won't list folders above files sorted by name. For me the folders work as a navigation control instead of content which is why I usually like them separate. My preference said, it doesn't really affect me in Diffusion.

See additional discussion in D9343.

secure.phabricator.com isn't in the Phacility cluster

Why do you mean by "this instance"?

I got code 500 as I checked out from this instance, was about 23:50 UTC, yesterday. Maybe related? After getting that code, I tried it again after about 10 seconds, then, everything was ok.

I just wanted to pop in and comment on the UI for projects.

How difficult would this be for someone to implement / does upstream have an implementation timeline for this?

If commits will end up in a tab, are there any plans on changing the link format at the commit list in the details section? It can sometimes become poorly readable since the links consists of repo and revision data prior to the messages.

After merging with upstream, we were able to increase our taskmasters up to 32, and still not come anywhere close to the number of connections that were previously used. So far, so good on our end.

I have 7 panels for new Phacility Admin, trying to think of one last action panel..... .... .... memes?!? Good idea or great idea?

I would also maybe check webserver error logs, too. OS/Browser might help to know as well.

I can't reproduce this based on the steps provided. Have you been able to reproduce in a clean environment like a test instance on http://phacility.com ?

In my personal opinion adding a CC that cannot see the task is an error and like this should be treated, meaning ux should just report as error when try to save it. It is important that ux reports it since it can be overlooked by the person changing the task.

I added you to Community, granting you sweeping janitorial powers on this install.

It's not 100% reliable but we can use that to make a pretty good guess.

For those moving from MantisBT into Phabricator Maniphest I'm activily building a full import web based tool that will extract just about anything from mantis, allow editing/ touching up, then process the import into a Phab conduit.

This is resolved on my end.

We know if someone has set up arcanist, correct? They ran arc install-certificate?

Please close - I figured out how to change the username. Not sure why I missed it the first time :(

Yeah, my main concern here is it sounds like you're working around #reviewers by installing a different dashboard on everyone's homepage. In which case maybe moving #reviewers to a CC instead might be better. People will still retain awareness, but the reviews will be optional. Pinterest also has some sort of round robin thing built for not overloading a group of reviewers. https://engineering.pinterest.com/blog/shipping-faster-new-pr-processing-system

It's very likely that our workflow is suboptimal, to be honest I just learned about this #reviewers group so I'll definitely discuss this with other people here.

Is it a reasonable possibility at looking at being more surgical with how project reviewers are added? Our general MO here is reviews should programmatically get targeted to the minimum set of responsible individuals, and people who want to be included outside of that use tools like Herald to watch for diffs they are not included on. Things like setting up code ownership packages, or making different projects for different types of diffs might make reviewing much easier.

No worries, I just started reporting issues upstream and it takes a while for me to understand what are your expectations and where they differ from mine. :D

Thanks, this is super helpful. Sorry for the back and forth.

The current status:

Specifically, it sounds like you want to exclude diffs you're on as a project reviewer for? But only as a panel, you still want to be on those diffs overall?

I'm trying to set up a panel listing reviews where the current user has been explicitly tagged.

I'm sorry if I sound like proposing solutions instead of taking more time to think about the larger problem, it's just that I have two readily available tools (viewer() and exact()) that combined would do exactly what I needed right now, but I just cannot combine them.

Here's github's version of this, as an example.

I've contacted Atlassian about this. They told me Sourcetree tracks branches automatically to cope with git's push.default setting. By default this is set to 'simple', which means git will push the current branch to a tracked remote branch that has the same name as the local branch.

No worries! Z1336: General Chat is a great place to join and chat with the community if you're inclined.

Its just suggestion as i say, mabye you deems it useful for yourself. Sorry if i written about it in wrong place, just wanted to give you a useful application for improving the convenience in your work)

If your developers are already doing this today, what's the feature request? See Contributing Feature Requests for what we look for in requests. Mostly, it sounds like your company has a local process already for this. I haven't heard of any other install with a similar process, so I don't think in general it something that should be brought upstream.

I deployed this stuff, and I'm actually seeing more used ports now on secure001 than I did in D16389. However, I think most of these are coming from web requests and the larger count is because we have more traffic during US daytime than we did earlier in the morning. It didn't occur to me earlier that I'd be accidentally counting connections from both sources.

No problem, thanks for the report!

I just did a Ctrl+Refresh and it looks correct. Sorry for the dupe (I searched "gradient" but didn't find that revision).

I think this was resolved by D16381, I just didn't deploy it until a moment ago.

My expectation is that reviewers do not accept code which isn't ready to go upstream

Yes this expectation does hold for us as well, however comments often do continue after acceptance, which results in a question of why was something accepted if there was more to say. Having a way to distinguish that an inline comment was specifically asking for a change or not (or some other type/context indicator) would simplify these explanations. This is not a huge issue for us, I was more trying to give a perspective of non-developer being a consumer of code reviews.

In T11450#189882, @epriestley wrote:

How did the author/reviewer know it was ready to go upstream in this situation?

My expectation is that reviewers do not accept code which isn't ready to go upstream (maybe it could be improved, but all remaining feedback is essentially optional), so the author and reviewer knew it was ready to go upstream because the reviewer selected "Accept".

Is this not the meaning of "Accept" in your environment? If not, what does "Accept" mean to you? When do reviewers "Accept" code which is not suitable to publish in its current form?

How did the author/reviewer know it was ready to go upstream in this situation?

Check this out if you haven't seen it yet?

@epriestley - I currently don't have the permissions to edit feed.http-hooks -- it claims I don't have permissions to manage the "finxpc.phacility.com" instance, however I'm apparently an admin on it. We (Danny, the person who set up the instance and I) have also been unable to figure out how to grant me any different permissions - could you please give us a nudge in the right direction? Danny also appears to be an admin, same as me, but has permissions to edit that variable.

Generally the reason we ask for feature requests to state problems, and not solutions, is that we have a backlog of several years of requests. The request would likely be entering a long tail and may never be built in a reasonable timeframe for your use. By stating the request as a problem, we may be able to help find a solution, though imperfect, that works for you today or group your problem with other similar problems that might lead to a more streamlined solution. We'd rather find a way to help you today than let a request sit in Maniphest for years before it gets addressed.