@keithzg: Thanks for testing. Did you spot any explosions? I'm now also considering to deploy to our downstream instance for a week to see if anything goes wrong...

Given the fact that the original comment from the kind @speck seems now fully satisfied, I think there are no problems to land this :) Thanks again to speck for that proposal ( https://we.phorge.it/D25022#768 ) - so, I flag that as "done" very boldly.

In D25022#24491, @Cigaryno wrote:

@speck if you think this thing works properly, you can either resign or click on Accept Revision, because when @valerio.bozzolan accepted the revision, it still appeared as Needs Revision.

P.S. - useful snippet shared by Daimona from Wikimedia:

Increasing a bit the priority since this is feasible, simple to reproduce, and really frustrating in 2025.

Hey, yeah I've checked aphlict is up and running

Is your Aphlict Server up and running?

Thanks for looking into it!
Cool trick with web.archive - very useful!

P.S. welcome in the family of Trusted Contributors and feel free to escalate this question as a new task under Bug Reports and by marking this question as obsolete in case - thanks again

Thanks for the question. I will follow answers. BTW I've found the nuked link:

@speck if you think this thing works properly, you can either resign or click on Accept Revision, because when @valerio.bozzolan accepted the revision, it still appeared as Needs Revision.

• Improved comment

Looks good to me. Feel free to land. Thanks for the patch!

@speck: Hi, would you be willing to land this? Thanks in advance!

Thanksss

Fix a typo

This is a great proposal. Did anyone think of showing two separate queries on Tasks: Assigned and Authored. In my opinion, it just makes it harder to scroll down to authored tasks which is why it makes more sense to have separate Assigned Tasks and Authored Tasks views on the profile menu.

make linter happier

Add some more stuff (final change; moving on to other code areas for now)

Make funtion private now that it's all in the same class; fix a doc typo

Directly put the text of the previous milestone into the description field and display additional info about this new behavior. Less code complexity, less manual user actions.

I do not think changes are necessarily needed, because it already says "With rare exceptions".
Regarding the proposal, I do not believe that "prototype applications [...] are often subject to significant changes" either.

@Cigaryno: That only works in Phorge itself. See:

as rich text and/or in common markup formats

@Tgr you want something like this?: T16008: Provide an easy way to link to a Phorge task in a user-friendly way
If so, just enclose the task ID in {} (ie {T16008}

(Downstream task: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T388243 )

I've created T16007: Discuss the policy for contributing to prototype applications.

In the meanwhile I paste here a proposed alternative that may better reflect the current situation (no need to update the patch - since I guess this phrase will attract more changes):

I agree on discussing the removal of this phrase. I will wait the task, but my opinion is that it's a legacy phrase from a company that had better to do than fixing weird workflows based on Prototypes (and it had sense). But now it's a community and we already work on best effort on everything, including prototypes. Moreover that phrase does not reflect the current situation, since we triaged and fixed 6 bugs on the Calendar prototype Calendar (even if it should be un-prototyped one day) - and probably more evident already-reviewed patches.

@Cigaryno please create a task under Discussion Needed for this - I'm not sure we want to make this policy change.

Fix the typo in line 167

In D25881#24406, @Cigaryno wrote:

In D25881#24380, @aklapper wrote:

Thanks. I'm personally fine with bug fixes for prototype apps.

Me too. Maybe this section should be removed?

In D25881#24380, @aklapper wrote:

Thanks. I'm personally fine with bug fixes for prototype apps.

In D25904#24401, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

@Cigaryno does it work also applying this D25535 ? Thanks Cigaryno

That's a good question. In general in Phorge/Phabricator any archived thing is editable. So I would say no, that archiving a chat still allows to write a message. But maybe it should not generate notifications.

Do we have a task to remove this file from source-control?

@Cigaryno does it work also applying this D25535 ? Thanks Cigaryno

Would sending messages be pevented on archived rooms and would all participants be removed (unless Can Edit is set to Room Participants)?

In T15237#14300, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

I think a dedicated policy for "Can send messages" would be better, to cover more cases. It would be strange that all participants must also be allowed to edit all settings.

Rip out more unused ancient code like unneeded expensive database queries

It seems that there is even more code to rip out here

Thanks. I'm personally fine with bug fixes for prototype apps.

(Premising that I'm affected by T15985 lol - unrelated)

@speck @valerio.bozzolan @bekay Would you like to review this revision?