release_process has been updated.

@Leon95 I encountered a merge conflict when attempting to land these changes. Could you please take a look and try to fix and land them yourself? If you need help, feel free to ping me.

Thank you for your work on this, Dan!

@golyalpha Are you still having this issue?

Boldly closing, as L1 exists and is available to sign.

Claiming this. Now that I've done this, I will take the time to document then I will close this task.

Follow-on task filed as T15120.

In T15117#2892, @jupe wrote:

Happy to create empty pages (I somehow feel that a wiki page with a fat TODO might be marginally better than a 404 :))

In T15026#2812, @jeremy.norris wrote:

FYI, the guide for migration doesn't seem to work quite smoothly for folks that were tracking the stable branch for Phabricator, because the new stable branch in Phorge does not have a linear changeset history to the old stable branch in Phabricator: if you follow the directions, you end up with a locally divergent stable branch that will contain a local merge commit.
Is there a reason the stable branch in Phorge wasn't created based upon the changeset history of the stable branch in Phabricator, in order to avoid this from happening?

Also, on a separate note, the changes from T15019 cause a conflict when issuing the git pull command:

error: The following untracked working tree files would be overwritten by merge:
	support/aphlict/server/package-lock.json
	support/aphlict/server/package.json
Please move or remove them before you merge.
Aborting

Should some notes be added to the migration guide on how to best deal with this as well?

In T15046#2762, @jeremy.norris wrote:

In T15046#2761, @jeremy.norris wrote:

It appears there are not any public repositories yet, is this intentional?

Actually, what is the correct Github organization? In the description for this task, the link is to (which is where I initially looked and saw no public repositories):

https://github.com/phorgelabs

But then in the comments above, the link is to (which does appear to have public repositories that are empty?):

https://github.com/phorgeit

In T15046#2788, @MacFan4000 wrote:

@avivey I see that the repos currently access GitHub anonymously. For auto mirror to work you need to configure a valid credential. By this I mean you need to create a username/password passphrase credential with creds for a GitHub account that has write access to the GitHub repos, and set it in the diffusion uris.

As @avivey mentioned, the GitHub organization is set up. Both aviv and I have access, and I am willing to add other people in the core team.

If you view a book, then view source and search for PHID-BOOK then you should find a policy link. That's the PHID of the book you're viewing.

In T15012#2678, @avivey wrote:

I've re-generated the docs, and now we have two copies:

so:

1. need to delete the old ones, I didn't find a straight-forward way to do that
2. maybe do some http redirect from the old links to the new ones.

We do have a security task creation form and a separate space that roots have access to. See S2

For the record, I am against this change.

I'll see if I can reproduce this error.

LGTM

Per discussion during {E9}

New certificate issued.

https://we.phorge.it/phame/blog/view/3/ - Security Announcements
https://we.phorge.it/phame/blog/view/4/ - Release Announcements

@20after4 Hey, this does not appear to be working. T15101 was created by a user who was not a member of Trusted Contributors

Please do not triage tasks yourself, we will integrate it into the roadmap as we go.

@speck What is the status of this change?

@avivey has fixed this on the upstream install.

Set up two blogs: Security Announcements and a Release Announcements.

As of right now, we have made no changes to the database and other "internals" - our work has been focused on rebranding as "Phabricator" is a trademarked name. For this reason, a rough migration path would be to check out the master branch of rP, copy the config directory from Phabricator to Phorge, and then point Phorge to your Phabricator database. I have tested it myself locally and it appears to work, however; if you have any issues feel free to ask a question on Ponder here and we can get back to you!

Related to T15090: CVE-2022-24765 - Multi-user Git Privilege Escalation perhaps? Revisions are stored in the database that's why they're viewable, but the main repository page requires a call to git.

@dtf I've added you to the Trusted Contributors project, so you should be able to edit the page now.