I'm still confused. I noticed that the Projects (archived) was archived since probably it was a sub-project, but why also Projects was emptied? It's a core component of Phorge, and it contained more than 3-4 Tasks inside (so, inside the avivey rule of thumb mentioned above). In this way I just feel like am I bothering you, just for trying to organize a massive work on a community project?

I'm done cleaning up Projects for now.

The old Chatlog data will be kept while removing Chatlog.

I'm ok with you creating a new Files tag for the Files app.

Avivey I understand your point of view, but please understand that it's really not feasible to look for "files" in the search engine, since we know in the IT everything is a file. Instead, just allowing people to click on a Tag and see some Tasks that are really related to what most looking is looking for (Files component), it's useful.

@avivey, @valerio.bozzolan this is not a place to discuss Files (archived).

We have a really good text-search system. Just go to maniphest and search for "files", you'll get everything that's related to it.

In T15130#5832, @avivey wrote:

I archived Files (archived) because there was nothing there.

In T15130#5832, @avivey wrote:

I archived Files (archived) because there was nothing there.
If it gets traffic, we can create a relevant tag.

There's no reason to create projects/tag on the off-case that "we might need this some day".

I archived Files (archived) because there was nothing there.
If it gets traffic, we can create a relevant tag.

In T15130#5813, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

I disagree: I strongly suggest to keep the ability to use Projects as Tags. One problem is Mobile that affects mobile users, but it's not related to a particular area of interest like Diffusion. Also, Files (archived) , I don't agree on archiving it, since having that Tag dramatically simplifies searching for that specific topic on a search engine.

If one topic has multiple tags, is just easier to find it. Not less difficult. It's just a matter of having clear Projects for components) and Projects for topic Tags.

In T15130#5812, @avivey wrote:

For php, eg, having a column for "8.2" under "php 8" is plenty detailed enough.

I disagree: I strongly suggest to keep the ability to use Projects as Tags. One problem is Mobile that affects mobile users, but it's not related to a particular area of interest like Diffusion. Also, Files (archived) , I don't agree on archiving it, since having that Tag dramatically simplifies searching for that specific topic on a search engine.

For php, eg, having a column for "8.2" under "php 8" is plenty detailed enough.

Adding lots of projects makes it harder to find the right project for a given thing.

I'm also the author of the first table here in the Change Log:

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!)

FYI, for now I'm still not clear about the use-cases - what this feature will be used for.

I think we can remove the Discussion Needed Tag since at the moment we just need to clarify a bit the feature, before being able to discuss it with more people

Ihihih OK my friend

In T15131#5251, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

As I already stated above, and as stated avivey, I think it could be nice if you share an answer to this question:

Are you sure you're not just trying to pretend Revisions are Tasks?

I don't want to bother you with questions because I like to do so. I'm just asking if you can share more about how you would like to use it, since I'm curious and I don't understand that and you are the only one who can clarify that. For example, maybe I cannot undertand that, since - as I already said - I don't set any Tag to a Diff, but I just set the Tags to the Tasks. This can be useful to maybe understand my point of view and share yours. Feel free to do so in the Task description.

As I already stated above, and as stated avivey, I think it could be nice if you share an answer to this question:

In T15131#5245, @avivey wrote:

This is the kind of features that need a lot of feature-planning before it can be implemented.

• What use-cases would this be designed for?
• Would this be separate from the Tasks workboards or mixed in the same board?
• what would the columns in such a workboard even be?
• are you sure you're not just trying to pretend Revisions are Tasks?

Apart from the analysis paralysis, I think this could be a good candidate for an Extension:

• make the boards code in Core more generic and re-usable
• create an Extension to allow workboards-for-revisions, and quickly iterate on that.

This is the kind of features that need a lot of feature-planning before it can be implemented.

I partially understand this and I see a potential, having said that I probably prefer to just create a Task before a Diff. So, practically, I will never use this feature. Since I never set Tags to Diffs.