You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2023. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2023. It is now read-only.
If possible, rewrite the rulesets in a way that does not require HTTPS->HTTPS rules. #10843
@koops76 there are pages of issues listed behind the 3rd pages, I don't really agree this is a good idea if you keep doing this. some contributors might lose track of the progress of some issues.
@koops76 imagine if everyone is doing this because nobody notice their issues, it will be pretty bad since bugs report and other issues will never get to the top.
@koops76 I agree with @cschanaj , please don't make duplicate issues. Aside from @cschanaj 's valid point of "what if everyone did this?", it also makes it harder to see the discussion around these problems like @Bisaloo 's and @cschanaj 's comments above.
It's best to consider these collection/checklist issues as being for your own reference, not for general viewing, in which case it doesn't matter how far down the queue it falls.
Please feel free to share any thoughts you have on making these issues more discoverable, if you want. Maybe adding certain GitHub labels would help?
I'm not sure how I would do that, if I wanted to. The project is almost entirely volunteer-driven except for a few paid EFF people who also have other responsibilities.
Did you (un)check a bunch of boxes? If so I bet GitHub sent a bunch of edit events to the bot when that happened and the bot complained due to the missing issue type metadata. In theory this shouldn't happen as of #13294 landing but I wrote that PR pretty late at night, and I think I forgot to test the date handling code.
If this sounds right to you I'll look into this and hopefully prepare a PR fixing it 👍
Activity
cschanaj commentedon Jul 2, 2017
Noted that the following rulesets do not rewrite HTTPS.
cschanaj commentedon Jul 24, 2017
Please also note the following rulesets found by the following command in #11024 (review).
Also
cschanaj commentedon Jul 28, 2017
Also note that the following ruleset
found by
Bisaloo commentedon Aug 1, 2017
#10087 updated
basekit.combut the https->https rewrite can't be removed without breaking stuff.cschanaj commentedon Aug 20, 2017
@koops76
why do you openre-opened this in a new issue #11993for this?cschanaj commentedon Aug 20, 2017
@koops76 there are pages of issues listed behind the 3rd pages, I don't really agree this is a good idea if you keep doing this. some contributors might lose track of the progress of some issues.
cschanaj commentedon Aug 20, 2017
@koops76 imagine if everyone is doing this because nobody notice their issues, it will be pretty bad since bugs report and other issues will never get to the top.
jeremyn commentedon Aug 21, 2017
@koops76 I agree with @cschanaj , please don't make duplicate issues. Aside from @cschanaj 's valid point of "what if everyone did this?", it also makes it harder to see the discussion around these problems like @Bisaloo 's and @cschanaj 's comments above.
It's best to consider these collection/checklist issues as being for your own reference, not for general viewing, in which case it doesn't matter how far down the queue it falls.
Please feel free to share any thoughts you have on making these issues more discoverable, if you want. Maybe adding certain GitHub labels would help?
jeremyn commentedon Aug 21, 2017
I'm not sure how I would do that, if I wanted to. The project is almost entirely volunteer-driven except for a few paid EFF people who also have other responsibilities.
3 remaining items
https-everywhere-bot commentedon Oct 31, 2017
I still don't see the type of issue in your description. Can you edit your issue to add this (perhaps referring to the issue template?)
https-everywhere-bot commentedon Oct 31, 2017
I still don't see the type of issue in your description. Can you edit your issue to add this (perhaps referring to the issue template?)
https-everywhere-bot commentedon Oct 31, 2017
I still don't see the type of issue in your description. Can you edit your issue to add this (perhaps referring to the issue template?)
https-everywhere-bot commentedon Oct 31, 2017
I still don't see the type of issue in your description. Can you edit your issue to add this (perhaps referring to the issue template?)
https-everywhere-bot commentedon Oct 31, 2017
I still don't see the type of issue in your description. Can you edit your issue to add this (perhaps referring to the issue template?)
https-everywhere-bot commentedon Oct 31, 2017
I still don't see the type of issue in your description. Can you edit your issue to add this (perhaps referring to the issue template?)
jeremyn commentedon Oct 31, 2017
@strugee What's going on with the bot?
https-everywhere-bot commentedon Oct 31, 2017
Thanks! Your edit helped me out. I'll take it from here now.
strugee commentedon Nov 1, 2017
@jeremyn yikes! That shouldn't be happening.
Did you (un)check a bunch of boxes? If so I bet GitHub sent a bunch of edit events to the bot when that happened and the bot complained due to the missing issue type metadata. In theory this shouldn't happen as of #13294 landing but I wrote that PR pretty late at night, and I think I forgot to test the date handling code.
If this sounds right to you I'll look into this and hopefully prepare a PR fixing it 👍
jeremyn commentedon Nov 1, 2017
@strugee This isn't my PR, I just noticed the bot having trouble. Maybe @koops76 could give more diagnostic information.
jeremyn commentedon Nov 1, 2017
@strugee See also issue #3069 which has a similar problem.
strugee commentedon Nov 2, 2017
Filed #13460 to fix this behavior.
Bisaloo commentedon Nov 8, 2018
This is fixed by #16924 and #17043