In T11291#185175, @epriestley wrote:

It's possible that we're in the wrong by falling back to set character set utf8;.

For anyone who can reproduce this, does this fail?

mysql> set character set utf8mb4;

@eadler, I was just able to resolve this on our installation by installing the php56w-mysqlnd package instead of php56w-mysql, which is what we had installed before.

That sounds like it might be what's going on. I apologize for not having better steps to reproduce; I'm working backward from example emails that folks are receiving, so it's been a bit of a guessing game as to how to make this happen.

Awesome; thank you!

Thanks, @epriestley (and sorry for getting back to you so late)! You're totally right that this is because I didn't actually update the revision.

Excellent; that's good to know. Thanks!

Are these updates legitimately accidental? Can you explain how users are accidentally making updates to others' revisions? I don't think we've seen this behavior on this install, or heard about it from other installs.

Thank you—that makes total sense. I'll track any feedback I hear from folks but will hold off on sending it your way until an appropriate feedback window opens up.

Cool; that makes total sense. Thanks again!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

This works great now; thank you very much!

In T9661#142249, @epriestley wrote:

oh come on you're just making up new workflows at this point

This is working great now; thanks so much for the fast turnaround!

That makes total sense—deleting master seems like a really bad idea in that case.

Awesome; D14357 does seem to fix this. Thanks! (Also, the new help documentation for arc land looks great.)

In T9562#140172, @epriestley wrote:

I'd be inclined to show N branches, for some small value of N like 3 or 5 or 10, with a link to "Show 1,695 more branches which contain this commit...".

Preferentially choosing autoclose branches to order first in that N might be desirable, although picking the first N that the VCS gives us may be faster or more scalable (e.g., if you had 170,000 instead of 1,700, the cost to select the "good" ones might not be worth paying).

A nice middle ground would be if I could specify to show some branches by default—for example, just autoclose branches—and to have others hidden unless specifically requested.

I think you're right; the best way forward for us to is to get more powerful filtering rules on the server side. In the meantime, your suggestion for using a mailing list or separate teams seems like a reasonable workaround. Thanks!

(Cool—that seems very reasonable.)

It seems perfectly reasonably to tackle the specialty-workflow problem via T5055, rather than blowing up the number of Arcanist flags. And, as you suggest, I think T9537 will largely eliminate my desire for this, since it will allow me to name my local feature branches whatever I want, and I'll only have to type the long remote branch name at feature branch creation time.

In T9537#139749, @epriestley wrote:

My primary concern with implementing this as the default/only behavior is that we won't have anywhere to put the user when we're done that makes sense to an inexperienced / novice Git user.

Thanks, as always, for your prompt and thoughtful responses!

I think you can create a "Mailing List" user and add them to the project to accomplish this. This is in addition to other mail delivery.

Thanks! It looks like the message delivery was voided because of my preference not to receive mail from Differential:

Hrm; I added a Herald rule that would email me if I'm in the list of reviewers, and changed all of the Differential Revision notification preferences to "Notify", but I didn't get an email when I changed a revision where I was a direct reviewer. (I verified that the Herald rule matched the revision in question using the test console.)

Thanks for the quick reply, @chad! If I understand it correctly, it sounds like you're right—T5791 is a superset of this request. Being able to write a Herald rule that drops outbound mail when I'm a project reviewer but allows it when I'm a direct reviewer would pretty much cover my use case.

Thank you very much! I've updated to HEAD and everything seems to be running smoothly now.