131–140 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being LAMP is a sign of a good project that probably will work out of the box. Remember the P was for PHP or Perl.
> Remember the P was for PHP or Perl. Or Python.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pretend the initial comment didn't say LAMP but just said "web app". That's clearly not useless, right? Yes. Yes, it is useless. > You can tell from context that it must be software, but "web app" is an obvious improvement from there. No. No, it's not. It still provides exactly zero context, and contributes exactly zero to the discussion. > But surely it's still at least as good as "web app"! Yes. Yes, it is: it co…
I really don't understand why you think "web app" is not better than "software?" as a description. But I can't think of any way to convince you, so oh well. >> Also "that vague description" was referring to "cage with an engine and wheels". > Are we still talking about a top-level comment on a link that says "Phacility is winding down, Phabricator no longer actively maintained"? Phabricator is the overall topic. But…
The topic is literally "Phacility is winding down, Phabricator no longer actively maintained".
> That's why the line you quoted had the word "camry" in it, in the part you cut out.
Doesn't really matter whether I cut it out or not. The original comment on the topic had as much relevance, context, or usefulness, as describing a car as a "cage on wheels": exactly zero.
And if you asked "What the hell is Camry?", and the answer was "a cage of wheels", that answer would still have no usefulness whatsoever. It would even be actively unuseful. Because this is a cage on wheels: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81ra8W7ndGL..., and this is a Camry: https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2020/01/2020-Toyo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we already switch to Gitlab for code review. But the task management utility in Phabricator are far superior to Gitlab, so it's a bit complicated to switch to Gitlab for now. There has been three big reasons why we are trying to switch from phab to Gitlab: * Upstream wasn't very interested in external contributions or hearing our suggestions * arcanist was a real pita to use for new contributors. Switching to g…
GitLab team member here. What are biggest task management features from Phabricator you don’t find in GitLab?
Thank you to everyone who has worked on it over the years!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't understand why you think "web app" is not better than "software?" as a description. But I can't think of any way to convince you, so oh well. >> Also "that vague description" was referring to "cage with an engine and wheels". > Are we still talking about a top-level comment on a link that says "Phacility is winding down, Phabricator no longer actively maintained"? Phabricator is the overall topic. But…
> Phabricator is the overall topic. The topic is literally "Phacility is winding down, Phabricator no longer actively maintained". > That's why the line you quoted had the word "camry" in it, in the part you cut out. Doesn't really matter whether I cut it out or not. The original comment on the topic had as much relevance, context, or usefulness, as describing a car as a "cage on wheels": exactly zero . And if you as…
...yes we agree.
> It would even be actively unuseful. Because this is a cage on wheels
You can go argue with eitland if you want, but their intent was a phrase that could signal "a car, a truck, a trailer with a power generator, etc."
As in a phrase that's vague but correct. I'd rather know something vague than know nothing.
I agree that being misleading is bad. But the LAMP comment wasn't misleading.
By the way, do you ever care if programs are web apps? If no, that's crazy, it matters a lot to how you can use it. If yes, then what is the difference between the situations you care and someone explaining phabricator?
If someone explained what you do with phabricator, but left it ambiguous whether you run it on your desktop or on a webserver, wouldn't you feel like that explanation was missing something?
-
Let's say someone had a list of facts about Phabricator to provide context:
1. It's software.
2. It's a web app. This also implies 1.
3. It's used for code and task management.
4. It uses linux, apache, mysql, php. This also implies 2.
When I go in knowing nothing, most of these facts are useful.
It's possible to guess from the article that it's software, but saying fact 1 is still good in making that clear.
Saying 1+2 gives even more info and makes it easier to understand the situation.
Saying 3 is also useful to understanding.
Saying 1+2+3 combines to give a great picture.
Once you've said all those, adding 4 doesn't help much.
But if someone didn't already know the previous facts, saying 4 also implies 1+2. Which is way better than nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Phabricator is the overall topic. The topic is literally "Phacility is winding down, Phabricator no longer actively maintained". > That's why the line you quoted had the word "camry" in it, in the part you cut out. Doesn't really matter whether I cut it out or not. The original comment on the topic had as much relevance, context, or usefulness, as describing a car as a "cage on wheels": exactly zero . And if you as…
> The topic is literally ...yes we agree. > It would even be actively unuseful. Because this is a cage on wheels You can go argue with eitland if you want, but their intent was a phrase that could signal "a car, a truck, a trailer with a power generator, etc." As in a phrase that's vague but correct. I'd rather know something vague than know nothing. I agree that being misleading is bad. But the LAMP comment wasn't m…
How it started: "I do see at least some information about what Phabricator is" and " vague description is much better than nothing."
How it's going: "I agree that being misleading is bad."
Number of times I said or implied anything about information being misleading: 0. Number of times I said the comment provided zero useful information: many.
> By the way, do you ever care if programs are web apps
> If someone explained what you do with phabricator, but left it ambiguous
> Let's say someone had a list of facts about Phabricator to provide context
Too many words that are as useful or as pertinent to the discussion as the original comment: not at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The topic is literally ...yes we agree. > It would even be actively unuseful. Because this is a cage on wheels You can go argue with eitland if you want, but their intent was a phrase that could signal "a car, a truck, a trailer with a power generator, etc." As in a phrase that's vague but correct. I'd rather know something vague than know nothing. I agree that being misleading is bad. But the LAMP comment wasn't m…
> I agree that being misleading is bad. How it started: "I do see at least some information about what Phabricator is" and " vague description is much better than nothing." How it's going: "I agree that being misleading is bad." Number of times I said or implied anything about information being misleading: 0. Number of times I said the comment provided zero useful information: many. > By the way, do you ever care if…
Here, I will quote what you said about misleading information: "And if you asked "What the hell is Camry?", and the answer was "a cage of wheels", that answer would still have no usefulness whatsoever. It would even be actively unuseful. Because this is a cage on wheels:"
> Too many words that are as useful or as pertinent to the discussion as the original comment: not at all.
Either you're badly misreading me and/or skipping half of what I said, in which case I give up, or you think it's not even useful to know that phabricator is software, in which case you are ridiculous and I give up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I agree that being misleading is bad. How it started: "I do see at least some information about what Phabricator is" and " vague description is much better than nothing." How it's going: "I agree that being misleading is bad." Number of times I said or implied anything about information being misleading: 0. Number of times I said the comment provided zero useful information: many. > By the way, do you ever care if…
> Number of times I said or implied anything about information being misleading: 0. Here, I will quote what you said about misleading information: "And if you asked "What the hell is Camry?", and the answer was "a cage of wheels", that answer would still have no usefulness whatsoever. It would even be actively unuseful. Because this is a cage on wheels:" > Too many words that are as useful or as pertinent to the disc…
For some unknown reason you seem to assume that any and all information, however useless, is "better than nothing". Go enjoy your cage on wheels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Number of times I said or implied anything about information being misleading: 0. Here, I will quote what you said about misleading information: "And if you asked "What the hell is Camry?", and the answer was "a cage of wheels", that answer would still have no usefulness whatsoever. It would even be actively unuseful. Because this is a cage on wheels:" > Too many words that are as useful or as pertinent to the disc…
> it's not even useful to know that phabricator is software For some unknown reason you seem to assume that any and all information, however useless, is "better than nothing". Go enjoy your cage on wheels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's not even useful to know that phabricator is software For some unknown reason you seem to assume that any and all information, however useless, is "better than nothing". Go enjoy your cage on wheels.
When the topic is a company stopping making a thing, it's useful to know what the thing is.
Let's say someone doesn't know what Phabricator is. After the insightful comment that is "better than nothing" that someone will no exactly the same amount about what Phabricator is: zero. And will have to Google or rely on other comments to understand what it is.
The fact that "it's a LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) application" has exactly zero value or use to anyone who wants to what Phabricator is.
Here's an actual useful comment that would actually provide actual useful context:
"For those who don't know, Phabricator is a collection of tools for collaborating on software (for example, code reviews). It's gained some popularity and Facebook is even running a custom fork of it. Fun trivia: it runs on a LAMP stack."
