(we can probably keep this ticket open, so that we have the 2nd part on the backlog. I'm pretty sure we want it to happen "eventually".)

Feel free to show something early :) That would attract more attention than the Discussion Needed tag I bet

Wrote the code for the first phase :p

Sounds good to me :p

We can also ship this feature in two phases, so, first, adding the option files.maximum-file-size, and then the second one when it's ready or requested lol

Yeah, I agree, though I would then only work on implementing files.maximum-file-size because we don't really care that much about adding exceptions to the rule (as far as I know lol)

Uh, that would be so good. So you can say "When the moon is full".

Sounds reasonable.

I like your option names. I like to specify PHIDs and not numeric IDs so it's more portable against import/exports 👍 Let's add Discussion Needed to attract some +1 or nice suggestions.

There is a significant amount of Phabricator dark matter out there - companies/people using the software, it works well enough, not really easy to know they exist or anything about their usage. I'm sure at least some of them have moved to Phorge. Automattic/wordpress.com have moved to Phorge and I wasn't even aware that they were using Phabricator before that. This is despite the fact that I did a pretty extensive amount of research to identify every company using Phabricator back in ~2019 as part of my work for Wikimedia, with the goal of reaching out and trying to organize an informal Phabricator users group. We had the idea that the various corporate users probably had good reasons to be collaborating and at least talking to each other since most of them were not active in the upstream project. Anyway, that never really panned out, although it did trigger a flurry of interest and some ongoing discussions via email (maybe even one video meeting but I can't remember the details now.)

Abandoning in favor of T15890 and D25774 per previous discussion

I think that is complex because some admins are not well active on their platforms, so as said before it can be underdimensioned

I'm not skilled enough to look into the bigger picture, however maybe the Edit Column dialog could have a third field apart from Name and Point Limit to also have Task Limit (or Card Limit?). Point Limit and Task Limit then must be mutually exclusive (do not allow to set both for a column, or even...board?), somehow.

OK. If you are partially mentioning nonsenses in we.phorge.it itself, you are indeed right.

We might come from different user journeys.
Your users might be aware what the project means, and that the project (and its workboard) is archived, and they do have an initial reason to look at this archived workboard (e.g. default view is not "open tasks" but "all tasks")?
My users clicked an external link to some project tag in something called Phorge, and that project has been archived in the meantime, and that project is set to show the workboard by default, and that is now just empty columns (as the default view of workboards is "open tasks"), and that is confusing and unhelpful.

(Trying to make this task a bit more about the root problem, and less about the proposed solution)

I mean. See this archived Project (archived Milestone), that is linked from our changelogs:

For example, some people then may ask "why my default view was changed?" and they will start manually "rollbacking" this to their desired view (e.g. showing closed tasks, from the Workboard, with a filter "Show all tasks").

Premising that I like the implementation but I think it's not the desired solution.

I think GitHub allows that syntax only in comments 🤔

In T15744#18236, @20after4 wrote:

I was unaware of `#0969DA` syntax from github/gitlab.

I was unaware of #0969DA syntax from github/gitlab. I'm not sure if I like that syntax better than {} but I am generally in favor of using the same syntax as other systems in order to converge towards defacto standardization.

Thanks again @20after4 for the efforts.

In T15096#12185, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

Another problem dramatically frequent for newcomers (at least in my office).

It's relatively too much easy to start with a similar commit message:
...

At least, please go to GitLab, instead of GitHub, so at least you use Free Software :)

Just some (probably final) thoughts on arcanist and phabricator/phorge. After quite a bit of discussion internally, we are moving on to GitHub with our repositories (which were previously stored in another Git server - not Phabricator). But that move also spells the end for our/my 10+ year long use of Phabricator, because when we move to GitHub, we'll also be ditching Phabricator for code reviews.

It seems to me that this problem can be solved with an additional setting that turns this functionality on or off.