Looks good, yeah.

@avivey does this look good to you?

In D25936#25132, @aklapper wrote:

@Cigaryno: Thanks! Could you elaborate why the change in .arcconfig is needed?

@Cigaryno: Thanks! Could you elaborate why the change in .arcconfig is needed?

So, this turns out to be a lot harder than I thought.

I don't know why, but O1 has to be manually added as a reviewer as it does not own R10.

It seems H29 works lol. I've improved it a bit to do not trigger if the celerity map was already touched.

To me, "obsolete" manes "no longer appliable" - basically, "the information in this page doesn't apply any more".
Some (made up) examples:

• "Can Phorge run on PHP 7.0?" (The answer is no, because of a specific bug in 7.0, which was EOL a long time ago)
• "I have this problem in the Chatbot app" (We've deleted the chatbot app)

In T15450#16936, @Iniquity wrote:

I agree that an additional status is needed for closing when creating a task. Current statuses are not obvious

Uh! That's magic. Thanks avivey. Created here: H29 Phorge: add comment to remember "celerity map" - T15209

@valerio.bozzolan try to create the global rule now.

Sounds good. It should have no CAPTCHA configured (maybe we.phorge.it needs CAPTCHA to reduce unused account creations) and just like on secure.phabricator.com (see this), there should be a notice for users willing to demo the software on the demo instance and not the upstream instance (in Phabricator you can create a Phacility test instance and even to this day, this is still possible).

try now

Tried. I Shall Not Pass :O

@valerio.bozzolan go ahead and give it a try? I think you have access to create rules.

@avivey what do you think about? Maybe we can test with some powerful clicks

This seems to impact mail deliverability to @icloud.com addresses too.

Please "remind" me about this ticket as often as possible, so I will fix it. I have everything I need to actually fix this, except the willpower.

We should maybe rewrite a bit the proposed solution, since ideally it's possible to use upstream.phorge.dev but it should be at least reachable to pass some anti-spam checkers I guess. At the moment it isn't:

And my spam filter says:

Maybe relevant, from my Postfix logs:

I agree that an additional status is needed for closing when creating a task. Current statuses are not obvious. "Closed, Graduated" is good to fast decision.

I've created R10 PhorgeIt Extension for this, with a little bit of content. I'll load it to the server shortly.

I sincerely thought that "Obsolete" was the good one semantically.

Seems like it is solvable via

While Deploy Keys do not appear to be the tool, I just configured a new Personal Access Token that's tied to the PhorgeIt organization. If there are any issues, please open a new task and assign it to me, I'll take a look.

It's an infra issue, but it's our infra :(

Yeah. Maybe also test plans etc.

What is being referred to as "Public Contents"? Wiki documentation? Diviner documentation? Ponder questions/answers? Other than those I'm not sure that should apply.

Issue on my end, will try to get the Mysql credentials set up for running tests

Ah! That makes sense!

(Unless there's some PHP 8.2 bug in my arc invocation... )

Pretty sure, here's the full --trace output, you can see it's trying to talk to we.phorge.it (also, I see we.phorge.it in my ~/.arcrc)

I say this, since we are receiving Diffs from many other people without issues it seems:

Are you 100% sure that you are communicating with this upstream?

(there used to be a "feature flags" application in Phabricator,

I can no longer reproduce this, so I'm guessing it was something bad in my setup.

I never tested that, but maybe we can create a couple of minimal Herald rules consisting in "Use Herald Rule H22" or similar

I've added H22, but I think at this point we should start writing code for what exactly is allowed/not allowed for these two branches.
It's also kind of annoying that there's no way to use the same rule for both repos.

Yeah sorry, I mis-used Projects since I was not bold enough to mark more appropriately with #Milestones (that we know are a type of Project internally)

OK thanks, so I understand what was the last cleanup: you helped in removing some Projects where was related to Workboard and #Milestones but the last one does not exist.

I removed the tag from some tasks that are about Workboards and not about projects.

Projects isn't archived.

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.

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: