Should have been called Gopher ;)

We removed the typehints elsewhere way back as well D14342 for compatability

I want

Use sub-modules and make the sub-module public? (or the parent public and the sub-module private)

Cool, now I don't feel so bad since I know you only recently added the option 😄

That works, Im curious when this changed, as I didn't need to filter since the last few weeks.

The reason I think something isn't working correctly is in my dashboard, I list recent commits, and since I updated my install a few weeks ago my commit list looks like this a lot:

@epriestley all other commits that have the message "This commit has been deleted in the repository: it is no longer reachable from any branch, tag, or ref." have imported, so I don't think the reachable code is working correctly, as until within the last few weeks I wasn't seeing these "This commit has been deleted in the repository: it is no longer reachable from any branch, tag, or ref." commits showing up, but now I see them all the time.

@epriestley
https://test-3uoifmrptebb.phacility.com/R2:80233a27d7b72bb03710d358e12a531ce46808a9

@epriestley The import has finished, but some commits show as importing still?

We once rendered these renames like this:

new/path/to/file.c
  Moved From: old/path/to/file.c

Personally I like that, I think a compromise to make it easier to consume, would be to try and group the moves together and showing the relation, for example
now:

a ->
b ->
a <-
b <-

to

a ->
a <-
b ->
b <-

T9805?

That error makes sense,

@epriestley you don't want to know what schools teach/accept now-adays... is very scary.

I expect it to work, because it looks like it is supposed to:

Of course! Thanks for poking around!

Im really not sure, when I run restart this is what my daemon page looks like:

T10433?

T10929

idx is https://secure.phabricator.com/diffusion/PHU/browse/master/src/utils/utils.php$36

Yea, so I think the path forward is to check the version of WS and to add some docs about it in the aphlict changes, and just the general updating guide.

Fixes the issue on my end! :D

Yea, I definitely would not recommend that,
then again using http instead of https isn't great either (its sent in plaintext anyway, regardless if you include it in the url or not)

I was playing with it and made a "Give me your money for free" Fund and now... I regret that...

T10772

We should probably substitute in "Unknown Ghost" then.

Fair enough, I will do that now.

It seems this no longer is working correctly:

I had this same issue, I had to dig into the db to remove the duplicate phids

Ah, makes sense.

I just ran into a fun issue that @avivey helped me figure out,

I can't seem to repro it either, might have been the issue with the edit route you fixed?

whoops, yes

Let me clarify,

I can't edit my own task... it 404's

That is hypothetical, but for example, lets say Evan publishes a post with the following:
/blog/750/development_notes_2015_week_494949494949494/
but really meant for the slug to be
/blog/750/development_notes_2015_week_49/

The easiest thing I can think of is simple typos/ bad c&p job

I have a concern about the /blog/<postid>/ignored_post_title/ approach, if the blog is indexed by Google, /blog/<postid>/ignored_post_title/ and /blog/<postid>/derpa/ will have the exact same content which Google penalizes.

When I have some time Ill implement a new DataCacheSpec, I chatted in ##php and asked about the OPCache, its enabled by default (like in PHP 5.5+) and there is currently no other available caching extensions.

You have the path to the library directory twice, print out the variables
that you use in the md5 function.

If you look at the error message and the path you can see what the issue is:

Drupal ran into a similar issue with APC not existing when they try to run APC unit tests.
https://www.drupal.org/node/2554065

Re-run arc unit

I wonder if instead of "Comment", "Justification" might have more use in certain cases? (why not both! "Comment/Justification")

I don't think that is going to work here are some things I pulled from the extension migration page (unless we ifdef large blocks of code):

zval

• PHPNG doesn't require any involvement of pointers to pointers to zval. Most occurrences of zval** variables and parameters have to be changed into zval*. The corresponding Z_*_PP() macros that work with such variables should be changed into Z_*_P().
• In many places PHPNG work with zval directly (eliminating need for allocation and deallocation). In these cases corresponding zval* variable should be converted into plain zval, macros that use this variable from Z_*P() into Z_*() and corresponding creation macros from ZVAL_*(var, …) into ZVAL_*(&var, …). Be always careful about passing addresses of zval and & operator. PHPNG almost never require passing address of zval*. In some places & operator should be removed.
• zval allocation macros ALLOC_ZVAL, ALLOC_INIT_ZVAL, MAKE_STD_ZVAL are removed. In most cases their usage indicate that zval* need to be changed into plain zval. Macro INIT_PZVAL is removed as well and its usages in most cases should be just removed.

@epriestley, due to the fact that the Zend APIs for PHP7+ are different than those in PHP5* how should changes to XHProf be submitted so we don't break stuff?

I for-see what @revi stated above as a pretty plausible scenario, even the looking over someones shoulder is a plausible scenario.

So I just did some googling and came across the RFC for MFA, and this is
taken from the RFC:

Yea, im getting the same results as chad, tested on php 5.6, and php7 is super fast.

I think this is more to conform with what everyone else does, I know Google and Apple don't let you re-use tokens even if they are still in the valid timeframe, not sure if there are specific reasons behind that besides the attack you came up with above.

This is probably geared towards more public installs, where short urls could be abused, (such as this one).