In T15130#5798, @avivey wrote:

@Cigaryno Phorge was only part of "organize projects here" task.

@Cigaryno Phorge was only part of "organize projects here" task.

In T15130#5794, @avivey wrote:

ah

For our codebase, it's enough to have a single "8.x" tag. We have several millions lines of code less then wikimedia.

In T15130#5788, @avivey wrote:

@Cigaryno wtf?

For our codebase, it's enough to have a single "8.x" tag. We have several millions lines of code less then wikimedia.

In T15130#5784, @avivey wrote:

I'm starting on some of the top-level redundancies (such as ..., and at least 3 different projects for php 8 support!)

@valerio.bozzolan what?

Just a clarification:

@Cigaryno wtf?

I've killed all the stuff from under Phorge, and I'm starting on some of the top-level redundancies (such as Typeahead and typehead, and at least 3 different projects for php 8 support!)

I don't personally have much insight into the "board" functionality, because I've never used boards in any setup other then as a simple table, and none of the workflows that involve moving small pieces of paper around make sense to me.

@20after4 Is it a problem for you if this is just a Diff, instead of a cherry-pick?

I think a tooltip would clear up some of the confusion around the numbers and what they mean. However, I think the issue described here is less about how confusing it is, and more about how the UX expectation is typically centered around count rather than points. For example, which has the denominator, turns the UI red, etc. So, a good idea! I just think it's separate. :)

By "tooltip" do you mean something that activates when hovering with a mouse?

In T15100#5480, @avivey wrote:

@MBinder_WMF - how much of this will be solved if we just add a tooltip to the [ X | Y / Z ] header?

@MBinder_WMF - how much of this will be solved if we just add a tooltip to the [ X | Y / Z ] header?

@valerio.bozzolan please archive Diffusion Repository Creators.

OK no problem. Thanks for clarifying that

The point in L1 about "decrease the privileges of the Administrators" was about the product, not about this install. It means allowing more things to be diverted from "admin only" to customizable permissions.

I see your point. Having said that reading L1 Phorge Vision Statement I see that we are trying to decrease the privileges of the Administrators so that they are not really Super Administrators. I like that. For that reason, and just because in Phorge it's easy to decentralize permissions (while in any other platform this is a pain), and also because the proposed group Diffusion Repository Creators is editable by both the members and by Administrators themselves and so there is no risk of creating a sub-group of gatekeepers, I think creating this group can be another step in the direction of decentralizing a bit the privileges.

I think we already have too many groups, and not enough demand for new repositories.

Hi Administrators! Hoping to be useful I proposed this small change in the Diffusion app. So that the privileges now are not related to Admins, but to Diffusion Repository Creators (so, Admins, plus some people if you want)

In T15081#3328, @tiguchi wrote:

I found myself creating milestones accidentally out of sequence and the only way to "reorder" was renaming the milestones, which felt quite punishing.

I assign this to 20after4 since it's totally not thanks to me that this was implemented :D Thank you for what you have done

I think this was improved thanks to @avivey

In T15084#3884, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

I think this could me marked as resolved since lot of users are using Ponder here. Nice.

@MBinder_WMF: Also, under the hood you're saying that, since Wikimedia have multiple teams (multiple Tags) it would be nice to allow to change Task Points without interfering each other,

I've shared two proposals, that are actually requests for comments. I would be glad if some people could give a look and share a comment.

Thanks for the suggestion. Default-to-1 has been mentioned before, and it's not feasible because of teams that need to cross-tag, where some teams use Story Points and some don't (thus, 1 point means something to one team but another thing to another). It's also common for 2 teams to use story points but have different meanings, where 1 point is a totally different scale depending on context.

Having said that, in the meanwhile, as workaround, probably you could just - in few clicks - add "1" as Point in each Task. Then, use the Point Limit just as a "Count Limit" logically. If you would go for this approach, it would be great for you, because then you could ask the Wikimedia Foundation to, simply, assume 1 Task = 1 point by default, and I think that would not be a problem for anyone there. I say this since I want to suggest something quickly feasible for you, without waiting to reach consensus for a breaking change on everyone else in the Phorge world (which in any case maybe deserves a discussion).

I honestly think that adding a new feature called "Count Limit" on Columns would be useful for you, so that you can use Points Limit on Milestones; and Count Limit on Columns (and ignore Point Limit on Columns).

I like your assumption of good faith! I'm a little more cynical about the thoughtfulness of Phab development, and the thoroughness of features deployed. I'll try to follow your example. :)

I don't think the hundreds of installations that use Phorge would want to abandon the way they do their thing so drastically. That is why I suggest to think about something that helps both them and you.

Thanks for your help! Much appreciated that the attention on this is being raised. :)

So, if I have understood correctly,

Hi! Thanks for following up on this. :)

It's been suggested that simply defaulting all tasks to 1 point solves this issue. However, that raises other issues (for instance, some teams may already be using the Story Points field for actual story-pointing).

By the way I have not understood if you are aware of this situation (I was not):

@MBinder_WMF Does it still describes your goals, or have I distorted it too much?

Uhm. It seems that Phorge/Phabricator does - as default - this thing that 1 point = 1 card.

Uhm. Yep. Do you know have any idea about what should be changed to achieve this in a secure way?

I wonder if this could be just a patch that assumes Story Points = 1 as sane default instead of zero.

I see that this sender is still as was reported.

I think this could me marked as resolved since lot of users are using Ponder here. Nice.

Maybe the milestone reordering feature could be behind an opt-in toggle? Personally I don't see any problem with that and I'm also not sure why milestones have to be strictly sequential in the first place. I found myself creating milestones accidentally out of sequence and the only way to "reorder" was renaming the milestones, which felt quite punishing.