test 2

For mention purposes, see also T12618.

derp this is done.

Sounds good, let us know if you run into issues.

or vue

good time to learn react

It's a day of re-thinking the entire UI for me. I don't want to shoe-horn stuff in.

From blame, it looks like D15278 originally stuffed these and some other things into a bit of a weird place -- I think we had some other problems with too much stuff in dropdowns at the time, and that was sort of a "shove this stuff under a rug for now" change? But I don't really remember.

thanks - I'll upgrade!

T.T

Too slow @epriestley

You should be able to use the "reviewers" attachment to get reviewer information. Here's an example of a query which asks for this attachment, and a response which includes it:

thanks - we'll give this a go. It's not clear how often people will need to use this so I agree with your concern about UI clutter.

Just some notes for myself:

This still needs another transaction type for installations/uninstallations; diff coming soon.

Probably just a flavor of T7332? I think the non-realtime counts (e.g., after page load) have been accurate for me.

Yes, see maniphest.points in Config.

Was this feature ever delivered? Just looking to hop on the right thread in regards to setting up variable task point values

It should, just not real time.

Yes, this will be implemented.

Is there any chance this will ever get implemented? The lack of this feature makes our lives a lot harder, and it's a highly ubiquitous feature (GitLab, GitHub, BitBucket, Gerrit, etc. all have it). We're trying to modernize a very old codebase, and any time anybody auto-formats a file to match our standard, Phabricator's diffs become completely useless. This wouldn't be a problem if we were using any other tool.

Also, just so I don't completely forget about it:

Changes in D17802, D17803, D17816 and D17817 all seem generally fine to me from cursory inspection. If D17819 seems sane for fixing the "huge blobs of unstable JSON" problem, let's stick them all on that, I'll take a closer look at the nodes, and we can get everything in? Good luck racing each other on minor version numbers.

ok, I'll add the request to T10293

ok, thank you very much as usual. Just one thing: i don´t see it as a design request, but as a feature to have categories cross-column.

(You are always welcome to fork Phabricator to provide specific needs to your team)

See Contributing Feature Requests and Describing Root Problems for what information is required on a feature request. We unfortunately do not take design suggestions as requests.

Yeah, that directly helps with this. I think I have a pretty good plan for the actual mail part that isn't too crazy complicated, but the cutover/migration bit will be much simpler/smoother if we get things swapped over -- at least, most of the way -- ahead of this.

Just to clarify, it is good to be moving all the apps to modular transactions? This task is my primary motivator to cleaning that up.

I'm thinking about resolving this by having three states instead:

@epriestley - I have "almost" ready test suite, hovewer I can't work out line ending test with CR/LF endings. - D17814

I think this was fixed by T12659 -- yell if you're still seeing issues?