In T15056#3210, @golyalpha wrote:
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Feed All Stories
All Stories
All Stories
Yesterday
Yesterday
Thanks for the answer! Can you recreate it please? :)
Thanks! :)
valerio.bozzolan added a comment to Q132: Why is there an `outline-style: none;` declaration for all links within Phorge/Phabricator?.
You are now in the family of Trusted Contributors :) Patch welcome.
aklapper updated the answer details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
Jack_who_built_the_house added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
BTW, check this out, the Developer Satisfaction Survey is just out; there is a section on Phabricator there, and we see some evidence very much supporting the hypotheses I mentioned:
- Almost everybody use Phabricator: {F2157279}
- Shared space for staff and volunteers is what people value in Phabricator: {F2157280}
aklapper updated the answer details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
avivey added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 161).
I thought we had a ticket for "allow more things to show up in workboards", but I can't find it.
avivey moved T15231: Maybe make automatic workboard display sub-projects as columns? from Backlog to Discussion Needed on the Workboard board.
Tue, Apr 23
Tue, Apr 23
20after4 committed rP4d12d014fd9d: Add PhutilRemarkupHexColorCodeRule, a new remarkup rule to format color codes.
Add PhutilRemarkupHexColorCodeRule, a new remarkup rule to format color codes
20after4 added a comment to D25540: Add PhutilRemarkupHexColorCodeRule, a new remarkup rule to format color codes.
I think the current syntax should be ok because it isn't normal to use {} around a project name. And my regex only matches exactly 3 or 6 hex digits, as demonstrated in the hex-color-code.txt test file.
20after4 updated the answer details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 161).
Trusted Contributors membership granted.
And I clearly missed being able to answer my colleague's question (Q128) that week.
I am an active member of the MediaWiki technical community (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/p/Iniquity/), and when I learned about the Phorge I wanted to do create some tasks. Plus I wanted to edit this task T15056 at least :)
Good question.
20after4 updated the answer details for Q130: How to join the group "Trusted Contributors"? (Answer 160).
20after4 added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
@Jack_who_built_the_house This is one of the things that always frustrated me with Wikimedia projects, there is a tendency to discourage doing something new or trying something experimental. Instead of just putting it out there and letting it either succeed or fail based on the merits, there is a lot of bureaucracy around consensus building. Sadly it's just the way things are with a community/organization as large and as socialistic as Wikimedia has become.
Jack_who_built_the_house updated the question details for Q129: [bug] Ponder: edits to answers are not reflected consistently in comments to it.
Jack_who_built_the_house added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
Alright, more questions arise as we discuss this in increasing detail, so I guess we should continue at an appropriate platform once and if this moves forward.
aklapper updated the answer details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
Jack_who_built_the_house updated the question details for Q129: [bug] Ponder: edits to answers are not reflected consistently in comments to it.
Jack_who_built_the_house added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
I think this would need a huge huge discussion across Wikimedia communities which nobody has the capacity to plan and lead (my personal interpretation) in order to get to a rough concensus.
I'm also not sure you correctly interpret the premise, because what I fancy is quite limited in scope: it's supposed to be a (pretty organic IMO) development of what already exists on Phabricator and not part of some kind of great migration of Wikimedia communities to Phabricator to discuss technical issues. (Again, I can't even say confidently that there is something to migrate – questions that are of relevance to developers as opposed to end users are hardly even discussed on wikis.) I agree though that what was planned as limited in scope could grow out of it, so this should be agreed upon in advance.
aklapper added a comment to T15152: MFA: Avoid to having to wait a minute so often, for example right after login.
A while ago I looked at this in downstream https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T259329#9354946 (long version).
In short, rPce953ea4479052c7e671c8c75af6833252ebefd4 and rP657f3c380608abc0fc59088d979457f1d8826f06 are the culprits.
Jack_who_built_the_house added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
The answer to "What's the alternative?" comes at the end of a long process
(Right, but I'm responding to your opinion which also comes before the end of that process, and this question is supposed to be a part of the information-gathering phase of that long process which you're kind of deflecting even though I value your perspective.)
Mon, Apr 22
Mon, Apr 22
looks like "OIDC is just OAuth2", so it shouldn't be impossible.
aklapper updated the answer details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
Jack_who_built_the_house added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
Part of the argumentation is based on a wrong assumption as Wikimedia Phabricator is not "used in numbers". Please compare the number of Wikimedia wiki editors and Wikimedia Phabricator users (minus some developers only). There are still many on-wiki folks who are uncomfortable using Wikimedia Phabricator.
But what is the alternative, on-wiki discussions? Does this actually work or can it? E.g. I have a question about a class of OOUI. Where do I go?
- Talk page that discusses that specific component (e.g. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:OOUI/Windows/Process_Dialogs)?
- Main talk page of OOUI?
- Extension talk page?
- Some things also have pages on local wikis (and, as a discussant on such a wiki, you often have to say to people "Hey, this is not discussed here, the devs responsible don't visit this page").
And how probable it is that right people will come across that topic? Especially if the question is esoteric, and only few people know how the component works. The devs who write them are often more known by their Gerrit/Phabricator handles, not wiki accounts.
aklapper updated the answer details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
aklapper updated the answer details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
(From Task description)In diffusion repositories, Description and tags are hard to find or never shown (only show in Manage page).
In T15526#16806, @aklapper wrote:Which exact page(s) is this ticket about?
Sun, Apr 21
Sun, Apr 21
Jack_who_built_the_house added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
@20after4 Thanks for the response. Integration with search is something I overlooked, but you're right; tasks can naturally come from questions, and questions can naturally come from tasks. Their joint discoverability and interplay is a fertile soil for education and development. As volunteers, our role is kind of limited in many cases to being passive recipients of what is decided in WMF internal communications. Having public discussions of components could add more dynamism to the process.
20after4 added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
I think ponder is sort of a minimal viable product state currently. It lacks some features like putting questions on workboards and there just aren't many
(or any?) integrations with the rest of phabricator. That wouldn't take much effort to improve it, most likely.
Jack_who_built_the_house added a comment to Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? (Answer 159).
But this is the exact reason I started to consider Ponder? Because all previous attempts implied fragmentation, while Ponder is integrated in the system people already use (Phabricator), both developers and volunteers, and in numbers. I've explained in more details how I see the current situation at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SDeckelmann-WMF#c-Iniquity-20240420234600-JWBTH-20240418220000. Please share your view if you'd like.
Which exact page(s) is this ticket about?
Iniquity awarded Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge? a Love token.
Sat, Apr 20
Sat, Apr 20
In D25080#16551, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:Eeeh but in that way it's 84 and 87 chars long.
Note that $xaction->getOldValue() in https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge/browse/master/src/applications/people/xaction/PhabricatorUserUsernameTransaction.php$62 seems to always return null. It does not provide the old/current username, while generateOldValue() actually does.
aklapper requested review of D25601: Fix exception trying to rename user to their previous username.
Jack_who_built_the_house updated the question details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge?.
Jack_who_built_the_house updated the question details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge?.
Jack_who_built_the_house updated the question details for Q128: How deeply is Ponder integrated with the rest of Phorge?.
Fri, Apr 19
Fri, Apr 19
aklapper added a comment to D25600: Mark created Pholio mockups as new objects to fix empty Feed transaction entries.
Screenshot before (M17) and after (M18) applying D25600:
aklapper updated the task description for T15792: Dashboard query panel requiring a Current Viewer throws exception when not logged in.
Thu, Apr 18
Thu, Apr 18
aklapper renamed T15791: PHP 8.1 "strlen(null)" exceptions editing existing Dashboard query panel with no query defined from PHP 8.1 "strlen(null)" exceptions editing existing Dashboard query panel to PHP 8.1 "strlen(null)" exceptions editing existing Dashboard query panel with no query defined.
aklapper updated the task description for T15791: PHP 8.1 "strlen(null)" exceptions editing existing Dashboard query panel with no query defined.
Mormegil added a comment to T15788: “Form data changed” confirmation is shown after even read-only keyboard interaction.
Yeah, that might help (like specifically in the case of the Clone dialog) even though it wouldn't help with dialogs containing writable inputs. (E.g. on the repository page, click Flag For Later instead and press Shift+Tab and Escape.) A better fix would lie at https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge/browse/master/webroot/rsrc/externals/javelin/lib/Workflow.js$413 where either the getSpecialKey would need improvement itself to return true for these non-modifying keys, or it would need to be amended with a custom check in that regard. However, I don't know where that function comes from.
valerio.bozzolan added a comment to T15788: “Form data changed” confirmation is shown after even read-only keyboard interaction.
Probably something here should be expanded to check if the form contains at least a visible input without read-only
Mormegil added a comment to Q127: [bug] “Form data changed” confirmation is shown after even read-only keyboard interaction.
Thanks, created as T15788
valerio.bozzolan awarded Q127: [bug] “Form data changed” confirmation is shown after even read-only keyboard interaction a Yellow Medal token.
valerio.bozzolan added a comment to Q127: [bug] “Form data changed” confirmation is shown after even read-only keyboard interaction.
You are now in the family of Trusted Contributors 🎇
Content licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC-BY-SA) unless otherwise noted; code licensed under Apache 2.0 or other open source licenses. · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Apache 2.0