I look forward to this post surviving a thousand years and being the only cultural reference future humans have post apocalyptic calamity for 21st century human ingenuity.

nice!

wow man, thanks for thinking about this

pretty neat and useful idea

We spent so much time on this it's almost nostalgic now :)

test of file attached to comment

Guys, I have a weird bug with files via email and I am planning on responding to this old invalid issue to see if I can reproduce. This is in the service of whether to file it upstream or not. I hope that is cool.

What if the "flags" app had a workboard and you could manage your flagged issues as if you had a personal project. /a crazy thought.

The original version of this essentially has that (before you submit an inline, you can mark your own inline as "Done", communicating that you don't expect the author to make changes to address it -- basically, instead of "+", you'd click a checkbox), but I agree with @chad that it's kind of surprising as an interaction. I think we'll take another look at it once we get a better feel for this feature.

In D12033#118054, @epriestley wrote:

• No specific action on the @chasemp use case for now -- you guys are still doing this in Gerrit, right? If/when the issue ripens, we can look at the current state of the world. Allowing draft-checks could be a very gentle step in this direction, but let's see how far we get without them first.

Warning external user intrusion.

Thanks man!

I have no authority here and I approve this message :)

It's definitely a bit edge case but a user filed a bug against the error for our pre-D11830 instance, which I why I am here bugging you now :)

As indicated pre-D11830 when I search 'help' I see:

Will do a bit of leg work on my end to confirm. thank you!

@qgil I bow to your superior memory

I could swear there is an ongoing open task to track this very issue but can't find it.

I have a Droid MAXX and see this sort of thing sometimes as well. It usually clears up on a reload of the page.

Maybe turn off feed notification during import?

IIRC the google authenticator app itself gave me one-time use codes when I first set it up. What client side app are you using?

I will not be offended as this is tangential if it is removed from this thread :)

Thanks guys. To give some background we generate the json file via puppet and so a custom ruby function. I bet that function is sorting these by key which means this is probably a local install particular. We are not crazy I am almost mostly sure.

You, sir, are a gentlemen and a scholar.

In T7092#93728, @chad wrote:

How often are you renaming projects? Is there a workflow where this occurs on a regular basis?

Unsure if helpful, when I used ponder previously we basically shoved all of the "happens every 3 months" or "happens with every new employee" discussions into it. If I said "skype sucks" (sorry ms!) then the irc bot would put a link to the discussion where replacements had been swatted down in the past :) Sometimes, not often, but sometimes a person would update one of these discussions with a really good answer that essentially something had changed since the previous stalemate. Ponder actually was super great for this. Long, ongoing organization wide debates on best practice were housed fairly nicely and to decent effect over the "long" term.

I guess it's true that only people now who can edit a doc can see others signee status, and this leaks that info. Wanted to make note in case that's important :) I can't think of why a whether a document is signed would be private, but probably if this task is desirable it should follow the same policy logic as other mentions.

I must have done it in two steps without even thinking about it :)

In T6905#90607, @chad wrote:

Thanks! And for the record I feel like a huge asshat, but also felt maybe explaining some behind the scenes stuff was maybe helpful. I hope nothing is taken personal. We do need the feedback to make the right decisions moving forward.

@chad, I'm sorry that was frustrating for you man. I think your response is fair in both cases. I wasn't sure if the punt was for the effort to do the thing, or for the thing itself. That's why I was wondering if a patch was welcome. Not to push any usability agenda really, just as a "hey if you guys are limited on time could we help this along?"

I was able to rename a project and add the old name as a hashtag? Is this possibly an issue related to older versions?

@chad would you accept a patch for this? @matmarex has indicated he would like to submit one.

I am wrong :) Stalled is an open state, and I did not assign me on that issue for this reason. It was moving an issue to 'invalid' state that did the auto-assign (but that is just my anecdotal example of this process)

Yep and the behavior I think is OK with us, but we are thinking that the "hint" of the dialogue showing the behavior would align things more with users expectations (at least seemingly ours). Right now unless you know it's going to assign it to you because of past experience I don't think there is any clue as you are changing state?

This is really awesome gentlemen.

Note: A user reported receiving the same types of emails form this repo https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/EVED/

In T6887#90317, @epriestley wrote:

Is it possible that the affected repos are being imported by creating a new hosted repo and then pushing to it, versus using "Import existing repository"?

side note, we've imported some other repo's like https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/OPUP/ and I have personally never gotten an email for my historical activity. So it's some repos only? It has taken us a bit to find the common thread on this.

root@iridium:~# /srv/phab/phabricator/bin/repository importing OPUP
rOPUP782413587eb5a246e67d426d7c8b2e2927ce1f18 Herald
rOPUP4cbebb710ebbb84ea608ae78a4b77f08e2d31780 Herald
rOPUP5c103fe23689bea836f6697d8f30856b743feb33 Herald
rOPUPfd5273a5fdbf6766b386a90a983fe4b7ab44b9e0 Herald
rOPUP4d105737116a927344ccd501d34d903060668f96 Herald
rOPUP6e4fac5909ff17217da6513a62f2de411aa090c8 Herald
rOPUP68e354d659035736bb3dd91324f751d5cdfa9270 Herald
rOPUPf1d22656f098d617344027f557168eb5aaf90d3c Herald

Seems like a reasonable approach to me fwiw :)

We do use the #routetoproject for email intentionally and advertise it. There are certain places scattered about that document how to file a bug for things in this manner. The ability to not orphan a new task on creation from email is much appreciated by folks i think at the moment. It also allows multiple projects(?). That doesn't imply affection for any particular syntax or anything. The primary use case for us is essentially a homebrew T5952 where an email sent to peanuts@ can cause the email to receive an appended #peanuts to the body and have the dest rewritten as task@. This bridges the gap for some legacy systems folded in especially.

This has been a source of confusion for people on our install as well. I have never made this task myself as I am not sure what is the lesser evil -- having descriptions process remarkup atypically on edit or the current. Maybe some version which has awareness for creation vs edit but that seems fraught with strange implicitness. Anyhoo, wanted to chime in and say this has come up a few times for us as well :)

I know this is low on the food chain as far as requests but a thought...

In T6772#87809, @chad wrote:

T5487 and T5558 likely resolve this "correctly". I can see if there is something small I can do now until then.

Oh sorry my bad. The context slipped by me.

We also are running the patch and it has been great, could this in some way be related to carry over daemon work from before getting in a weird state? We did carry over a large backlog though during upgrade (500k+) and PhD caught up like a champ so I dont know.

Could this possibly be related to the intended punch through nature of edge policy relationships between files and tasks. I believe when a file is dropped on an issue as the upload mechanism it is a non-default case, and the intended relationship is that policy is more or less inherited from the task. As an example, I upload file.jpg to a task about sensitive things. It will be set as viewable by me, but the file association tab in files app shows the task association and anyone who can view the task can view the file. It is slightly implicit but quite sane for managing policy relationships between applications. In contrast, if I go to the files app and upload a file directly it inherets the default policy of that application only. This is my understanding of the process :). So if you drag a file onto an issue and the issue is set to all users it is essentially available to all users by association.

same output

<root at sockpuppet:~/pdns-templates# svn diff
Index: wikimedia> (working copy)
@@ -502,6 +502,7 @@
;donate 1H IN A 208.80.152.200 ; wikimedia-lb, can't mix cname+mx
; 1H IN MX 10 aluminium
; 1H IN MX 20 mchenry
+doc 1H IN CNAME gallium
dvd 1H IN CNAME www.masterssystems.com.
@@ -510,6 +511,7 @@
imap 1H IN A 208.80.152.187 ; sanger
1H IN MX 10 mchenry
+integration 1H IN CNAME gallium
irc 1H IN CNAME ekrem
ntp.pmtpa 1H IN CNAME linne
Index: mediawiki.org
===================================================================
--- mediawiki.org (revision 3763)
+++ mediawiki.org (working copy)
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
bugs 1H IN CNAME mediawiki-lb.wikimedia.org.
; Other websites
+doc 1H IN CNAME gallium.wikimedia.org.
donate 1H IN CNAME mediawiki-lb.wikimedia.org.
download 1H IN CNAME kaulen.wikimedia.org.
integration 1H IN CNAME gallium.wikimedia.org.

<root at sockpuppet:~/pdns-templates# svn diff
Index: wikimedia> (working copy)
@@ -502,6 +502,7 @@
;donate 1H IN A 208.80.152.200 ; wikimedia-lb, can't mix cname+mx
; 1H IN MX 10 aluminium
; 1H IN MX 20 mchenry

As usual, reasonable and clear. Thanks man.