I have this look on Windows for

a {
  outline-style: auto;
}

Last Chrome	Last Firefox

This is the same as Q132: Why is there an `outline-style: none;` declaration for all links within Phorge/Phabricator?

@avivey that's an excellent observation.

That "don't sign a CLA" article should be titled "don't sign away your copyrights", to be more accurate and less click-bait-y. A CLA may ask you to sign away copyrights (which I feel makes the project non-open-source) ; It doesn't have to.

I'm pretty fine with DCO (which I already do every commit via the git commit -s command) — but I'd rather not sign a CLA. (I’m pretty undecided if I will sign phorge's CLA, but phorge is not commercial entity seeking to mongodb/terraform/elasticsearch-ize the software (read: make a profit from open source, then turn it into All Rights Reserved) so I might do so… after all these incidents I'm rather wary of it.)

Yeah, thad makes sense, I guess.

Suddenly, yesterday I was also talking in one of the kanban communities and I had to tell them that Phorge is a fork of the Phabricator, and not some kind of independent thing without a background. People don't quite understand this.

Good question.

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

:p

I was responding to the previous comment which...

Our company uses the Phorge, and we use Keycloak as IAM. Keycloak is a very popular OAuth2/SAML provider now.

GitHub/Facebook is already supported as a Login/Registration providers.

In T15047#1308, @speck wrote:

Did that Phactory: Hosting Projects Here

I can reproduce this, on an hosted Subversion repository.

Yes will be great to see a SAML or Oauth support for external authorities like:

• Keycloak
• Entra ID
• Github
• Facebook
• WeChat / WeCom

Premising that we may want to rollback 328aee033fbd, probably this line is broken:

Ouch. Probably partially my fault. Feel free to escalate this as Task under Bug Reports - close this as obsolete then

I can reproduce this on master with basically any string search.

https://we.phorge.it just works fine. :L

Interesting. This cannot be reproduced here in this website https://we.phorge.it? isn't it? I think no

:p

(Please edit file Visibility to make them Public :D It's another bug ihih - thanks! <3)

The exception throw out when I search text in search bar:

Please also include your exact search. I think you are searching by https://foo and that is unfortunately not possible without "doing this"

@avivey to do now:

Your email address(es) set by you for your user account in the Phorge Project

That is private data. Nobody can access it.

I have a problem with this statement:

Would you like to go to court to defend that statement? :)

OK OK. So what else? Maybe this (mention from https://secure.phabricator.com/p/epriestley/):

I could not sign it if it required brushing three times a day. Removed purely due to egoistic laziness reasons.

No brushing teeth three times a day? However it looks good to me 👍

Well, I would rewrite quite a bit, so I'll post a draft here before editing directly:

Totally agree. Thanks for any edit in the stub.

In T15121#3880, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

I don't think that the author should ever allow to re-license its work. [...] Normal volunteers do not accept that.

Unrelated note, but interestingly the contributor agreement chooser (https://contributoragreements.org/) is broken. I've already sent an email to their support.

In T15673#15587, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

TRUST ME - YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN MY ENGLISH :D :D

Btw now the video is here :D :D AGAIN SORRY PHORGE FOR MY MISTAKES <3 <3

https://video.fosdem.org/2024/h2215/fosdem-2024-3610-unpack-phabricator-welcome-phorge-forking-the-opinionated-open-source-project-manager.av1.webm

In T15673#15587, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

TRUST ME - YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN MY ENGLISH :D :D

Btw now the video is here :D :D AGAIN SORRY PHORGE FOR MY MISTAKES <3 <3

TRUST ME - YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN MY ENGLISH :D :D

Nice! Is there a recording of the talk?

Nice, you touched on most of the advantages of Phorge. It really does have some strong competitive advantages.

Hahaha I’m just now seeing this. Thank you for putting together the presentation and giving the talk. I enjoy seeing your excitement!

Thanks for all the tips <3 <3

I was able to recover the layout in PNG at least. Imagine this 3''x2''. Here:

I'M REALLY SORRY FOR WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE - I'M NOT A DESIGNER

One concern that I have is that there isn't really a one-size fits all deployment. A single tiny VM image with the database and web server pre-installed would probably be ideal for evaluating and even for a tiny team's use. Once usage increases beyond a very basic level then users will fairly quickly outgrow a tiny VM and need at least a larger memory, more storage, possibly a separate database node, etc. Migrating from the tiny setup to a more robust setup might not be a fun process and I don't know how much we should encourage people to start out with a setup that won't scale very well for them.

I think there's an app-store style thing for hosted VMs in the big cloud providers

Maybe we can wontfix this, and try other more modern approaches like flatpak. Example:

## Contents

- is Phorge good for my Organization?
- differences between Phorge and GitLab, GitHub, Launchpad, Mantis, ...
- what's new in Phorge (that is not in Phabricator)
- practical workflows and pitfalls
- how to join the Phorge community
- how to propose code patches

As the patch was merged I assume that this issue is resolved. If not, then please reopen - thanks!