Faster logic, higher performance, and better looking strings! Now all included in this brand new version!

Done - #ponder now refers to the new (active) tag.

In T15056#3210, @golyalpha wrote:

Another example of broken dark theme

Thanks for the answer! Can you recreate it please!? :)

Thanks! :)

You are now in the family of Trusted Contributors :) Patch welcome.

BTW, check this out, WMF's Developer Satisfaction Survey is just out; there is a section on Phabricator there, and we see some evidence very much supporting the hypotheses I outlined:

• Almost everybody uses Phabricator: {F2157279}
• Shared space for staff and volunteers is what people value in Phabricator: {F2157280}

I thought we had a ticket for "allow more things to show up in workboards", but I can't find it.

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.

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.

@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.

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

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.)

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.

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.)

looks like "OIDC is just OAuth2", so it shouldn't be impossible.

@aklapper

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 class (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.

(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?

@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.

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 Phorge. That wouldn't take much effort to improve it, most likely.

But this is the exact reason I started to consider Ponder in the first place. 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#How_volunteer_developer_support_could_be_improved_in_Wikimedia. Please share your view if you'd like. You can also join the discussion in the English Wikimedia Discord I started here.

Which exact page(s) is this ticket about?

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.

Screenshot before (M17) and after (M18) applying D25600:

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.

Probably something here should be expanded to check if the form contains at least a visible input without read-only