It kind of makes sense.
maybe some day we'll need to extract the Identity table to a different place.

Thaanks @20after4 - I would say: be bold and mark as resolved to get eternal glory 👍 half year of discussion is probably enough and everybody seems happy about this.

Very helpful - thanks!

I have already spent some time implementing types for a few of the widely used utility functions in rARC src/utils/utils.php (like id(), mpull(), newv(), etc..). I will make an effort to get it in shape and submit a diff for review in the near future.

I see no reason not to pursue this. Does anyone else?

Another good simple candidate GDPR-friendly:

I'm not familiar with MediaWiki's packages - the model I'm copying is VSCode.
My thought is that in the install manual we'll say "now run ./bin/extensions install phorge-recommended-extensions" (near the ./bin/storage) step, and phorge-recommended-extensions would be the equivalent of "extension pack" hosted on the default Extension Store, which is hosted here.
(VSCode also has "bundled extensions", which I think doesn't work for us because we use "clone the repo" as the primary distribution system).

In T16007#21223, @avivey wrote:

In T16007#21196, @Cigaryno wrote:

In T16007#21194, @avivey wrote:

Ideally, any current Prototype can be either promoted to Core, extracted to its own extension, or removed completely. Each extension/author can have their own policy on contributing.

Already, any new app that would be considered "Prototype" today should just go in its own extension, and we decided to remove a couple.

It depends on who on the wild (including large private companies developing closed-source software) is using prototype applications on Phorge. This should let us know if it should be promoted to core, separated into an extension, or removed completely if no one uses it (like Releeph and Phragments). Or even better, hold a Slowvote for each prototype application's future and possibly have Phorge's customers to vote (maybe notify as much as possible by creating a blog post about the vote to notify those who use the Atom feed).

I'm not sure that "usage" is really the best way to choose between "promote to core" and "extension"; The way I imagine it, in addition to the Core, we'll have a set of "highly recommended extensions" maintained, and a single step to install all of them when setting up a new machine. In that world, any app that can be separated out to an extension will be.
The prototypes can usually be curved out easily, without effecting the rest of the code.

In T16007#21196, @Cigaryno wrote:

In T16007#21194, @avivey wrote:

The "Prototype" concept was a way for Phacility to experiment with things without committing - but we have a different model today.

Really!? Phacility SaaS instances do not allow enabling prototypes and self-hosted Support (from the Support application on admin.phacility.com that was oddly marked as Prototype) likely wasn't even available for prototype applications.

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)...

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'd be very much in favor and I'd be happy to contribute changes for this. I've added type hints in my local fork to assist in development. Especially for core utility functions like idx and id which otherwise completely hide type information.

Suggested meme for closing: "yesyes"

In T15100#18699, @aklapper wrote:

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.

(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