In T16007#21196, @Cigaryno wrote:

It depends on who on the wild (including large private companies developing closed-source software) is using prototype applications on Phorge.

See T15501: Voluntary Usage Survey App basically.

Or even better, hold a Slowvote

Please no popularity contests (with even higher self-selection bias)...

Hmm, maybe should not change ->setURI("/people/tasks/{$id}/") because there might be external third-party code relying on this?

Changed the policy for file F3250825 to Public.

@vabocharov please set the view policy of F3250825 to Public.

Good afternoon!
I get it, if you go to Phriction > Welcome to the Forge Wiki, then the hierarchy of documents will be displayed at the bottom (the screenshot below is attached). You won't see this in your example, as there are no attached documents.

In T16007#21194, @avivey wrote:

My thought on this is that long term, we'll remove the concept of "prototype" completely in favor of Extensions.

Prototypes that need a long way before being promoted to Core are those that should be separated into extensions.

In D25872#23862, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

In D25872#23861, @nib wrote:

@aklapper Would it make sense to move the branch-naming lines into a function in class ArcanistGitWorkEngine, since it the branch-naming is git-specific? E.g.

public function buildBranchName($task_ref) {
  $task_name = $task_ref->getName();
  // regex, preg_replace, trim, etc
  return $branch_name;
}

Probably yes so it's easier with Subversion and Mercurial in the future (?)

Probably something with "for task" in the name like buildBranchNameForTask($task_ref)

My thought on this is that long term, we'll remove the concept of "prototype" completely in favor of Extensions.
The "Prototype" concept was a way for Phacility to experiment with things without committing - but we have a different model today.

• Handle arc work for new and existing git branches

Handle arc work for new and existing git branches

In D25905#24572, @aklapper wrote:

@Cigaryno: Oops, I am sorry! I had forgotten that this proposal also existed as it wasn't linked under "Revisions and Commits" in T16007. My fault. :-/

@Cigaryno: Oops, I am sorry! I had forgotten that this proposal also existed as it wasn't linked under "Revisions and Commits" in T16007. My fault. :-/

Hej hej and welcome! I'm afraid I cannot really follow... In my understanding the hierarchy is expressed via the breadcrumbs navigation right below the top bar and not at the bottom, at least for a screen width of 513px and more?
For example if I go to https://we.phorge.it/w/changelog/next_up/ , see the Phriction > Welcome to the Phorge Wiki > Change Log > Next Up breadcrumbs.

Obsoleted by D25909: Diviner: Contributing Code: Update section on Prototype Changes. I think @aklapper should have instead commandeered this rev but it's still okay to have a new revision instead.

where did my closing brakets go?

In T16007#21080, @aklapper wrote:

I do not think changes are necessarily needed, because it already says "With rare exceptions".

Bug fixes and security patches are indeed exceptions but not rare exceptions, assuming they fix problems with rough prototypes.

sorry for the late reply.
This looks good to me.

Thanks for this patch! Kind reminder: if you touched CSS or JavaScript, please remember to also run this:

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.

I agree this seems pretty fundamental.

I can’t think of a reason this would be happening other than a bug or database inconsistency.

Fix the URL.

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).

If there's interest, I revived hach-que's old Docker setup and am updating it to work with Phorge because azure devops is killing my soul at work. It's suitable for both local dev environments (T15011) and production installs, and I'll be supplementing the repo with IaC for a production deployment (T15928).

Grazie milée!

Ah, it also works on my computer but really not relevant, just the patch description was in line with my business expectations

This is EXACTLY the kind of serious-business patch description that should be mandatory in every Phorge patch to speedup code review. Thanks my friend. asd

I didn't notice anything amiss!

Sure, let's try again, why not

Make arc lint happier

@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: