Thu, Jan 24
Jul 14 2018
Jun 16 2018
Jan 29 2018
Oct 3 2017
Aug 3 2017
The current patch is unfortunately not the best approach of how it could (and should) have been done:
Jun 8 2017
Jan 30 2017
Jan 27 2017
Jan 3 2017
Dec 28 2016
Oct 27 2016
Oct 15 2016
Sep 26 2016
Sep 3 2016
Aug 29 2016
Before starting creation of anything, please mind the icons in the proposal.
Aug 20 2016
That's intended and correct behavior.
Aug 18 2016
Aug 16 2016
@vtingey Thank you for updates.
Likely INVALID/WONTFIX as it is intended/expected behavior:
Another con for Placeholder goal cards:
Nobody bothers to close them when the sprint tag is archived, so they become semi-orphaned tasks (cf. T133649: Identify archived projects with tasks open that have no other projects assigned).
(Edited the description into structures to be easier to read and navigate, no content changes.)
Aug 15 2016
OK, I just wanted to ensure we didn't overlook any possibility.
Gadgets (and possibly even user scripts) should be taken into consideration as well before tipsy is completely removed. Will require Notice.
Observation for the record:
Any combination of two out of those three words result in successfull match of T68699.
@mmodell As I don't have the relevant access, I can't verify the foundation for my idea, but before you close it forever:
I had the idea of taking the trailing / in directories into account in relevant query/ies.
Something like (pseudocode): SELECT name, ( IF LastChar( name ) == "/" THEN 0 ELSE 1 ) AS isDir ... ORDER BY isDir, name.
@JAufrecht (Unless I missed or misunderstood something on the way...) Wouldn't it be actually more accurate "Phlogiston should be able to select projects and tasks to import by project ID" to reflect that it is actually request and not description of the current status?
Thank you for explanation of the process and link to the proposal. I am going to go through that and if you would be interested I may put some comments or suggestions (if I will have any ;-)) there.
I apologize, but I have to refrain from continuing in further discussion until some purely neutral, non-POV, non-slandering and non-defamatory task title is set.
Not really (but thank you though at least for that, better than Nemo_bis' silence). You wrenched one question out of context(*) of three tightly binded questions. They must be answered together, because separating them changes the status quo.
Sorry, but I am not going to play this game either. I am seeking fair and constructive discussion, and this is not how such discussion looks like.
Non-rhetorical question is not an answer. And I refuse to spin in the endless spiral of unanswered questions reacted by counter-questions.
I asked for reasons, fundation, justification, whatever the proper English word would be, of the disabling several times. Got no reply. I reverted the first disabling and then the discussion should have started by the original actor if he disagreed. It also did not happen.
The ball is not on my side now.
Hi @MBinder_WMF, thank you for explanation of the removal of the tag and motivation behind creation of the task.
Setting High priority because it is not the first time I am encountering this either myself or reported and it is very annoying.
Nice job, @Ciencia_Al_Poder, thank you!
"Orphaned" is sort of terminus technicus meaning completely unlinked which isn't true in this case.
Nope. Only for those, where someone requires that, as it is optional add-on to the current behavior. Obviously the most majority of users doesn't care.
Ah, right. I forgot about those. Thanks for reminding.
Please read the project description page.
Aug 14 2016
Great, so we can move further now. Thank you, @matmarex.