I just found T134106 and would like to explain my use-case better: In our team, we work on stuff together – as a team. There is almost never an individual person that really "owns" something. Yea, we still assign tasks to individual persons when one developer does a larger chunk of work and want's to make this visible to the other team members, to avoid conflicts or accidentally doing stuff twice. But we un-assign it the moment the person finished that step, and it's again up to the entire team to continue working on the task, review it, demo it, and so on.

When somebody from the team marks a task as being resolved, it's rarely the person who wrote the code, or the person who merged the patch, or the person who demoed the change to the team, or the PM that approved it. It's somebody. The task is owned by the team and resolved by the team. Not by a single person. And probably not by the person that clicked the submit button.

T134106 mentions it would be "hard to find who closed a task". I'm not sure I understand. Maybe this refers to an older Phabricator version? Because when I use the "Closed By" search field, I can find all the tasks I closed, no matter who is assigned to the task.

Please don't close this as a duplicate.

In T261483#6418412, @thiemowmde wrote:

Please don't close this as a duplicate.

Please explain what is different in this task compared to what is being requested in T134106.

{V22}

Would it be possible to add a setting to allow enabling/disabling this feature per user?

How is this something anybody can vote for? What do you expect from a poll that is not visible to anybody outside of this task? I refuse to collaborate. Even if only 1 of 10 users have to constantly un-assign themselves, or forget about it and are unintentionally assigned, this still makes the other 9 auto-assignments meaningless as well. There is no way to see the difference between it being done intentional or being auto-generated garbage.

What is the point?

T134106 is 4 years old and it does not look like the issue is understood. It's even lowered to "lowest", which effectively means "we don't care and will never touch this again".

A per-user setting would be a solution, but must be opt-in for the same reasons.

In T261483#6418533, @thiemowmde wrote:

T134106 is 4 years old and it does not look like the issue is understood. It's even lowered to "lowest", which effectively means "we don't care and will never touch this again".

Then you should discuss on that existing issue instead of fragmenting the discussion. :)

In T261483#6418500, @Majavah wrote:

Would it be possible to add a setting to allow enabling/disabling this feature per user?

It's possible but not necessarily easy to implement.