⌘K
Amy Egan Please refer to the documentation for more details. There is an Ask AI feature available to help you vercel.com/docs
Juanclases33 5979 Thanks, Amy. I followed your suggestion: I read the relevant documentation and asked the docs' Ask AI about each unresolved point. Its answers did not identify a documented source that settles the distinctions below. I am not treating an AI answer as an official confirmation of unavailability. Could a Vercel team member answer these six numbered questions, or route the runtime/history questions to the relevant product team? The current single-human Owner role/count is already resolved. **1. Direct versus inherited access on Hobby** The Hobby comparison lists RBAC as N/A, and project-level roles are Enterprise-only. Does this mean that separate direct-project and inherited-team membership categories are **not applicable** to a single-Owner Hobby project? If they are applicable, how is that Owner classified, and which supported source defines the counts? Please distinguish effective permissions from stored assignments. **2. Overlap** If those categories apply, can the same Owner belong to both? Is there a supported aggregate source or documented rule for determining the overlap without publishing identities? If overlap is not applicable on Hobby, that explicit answer is sufficient; I do not want to infer zero from an unavailable UI. **3. Historical runtime version** The Node documentation explains automatic minor/patch updates and that build and runtime versions may differ. If an old invocation did not log `process.version`, is there any supported read-only record of the exact runtime minor/patch for an existing deployment, region and past timestamp? If yes, which source/field and retention? I am not asking for a pinned version, a new invocation, or the build-time version. **4. Installed function artifact** Does a customer have a supported read-only source for an immutable digest/manifest of the function artifact actually installed for an existing deployment? List Deployment Files describes source files, not that installed output. If the installed-output identity is not exposed to customers, please confirm that specific limit. **5. Provenance of that artifact** Is there a supported retained record linking that installed output to its source commit, resolved dependencies, build, deployment, environment and timestamp? Deployment metadata and build logs provide some of those facts; is the complete linkage available, and which parts are not covered? No environment-variable values or secrets are requested. **6. Past non-Fluid duration** The legacy guidance confirms the 10-second Hobby default without Fluid. For the original non-Fluid context on 11 October 2026, does a blank project Max Duration field with placeholder 10 establish that default, or can another setting override it? What retained source establishes the configured/applicable value at that time when the project response omits the relevant keys? The Activity Log lists `project-function-max-duration` and `project-functions-fluid-enabled/disabled`; GET /v3/events supports `withPayload=true`. Do these specific payloads include old/new settings, and what retention applies? Our earlier filtered read did not supply a historical value, so repeating it without a new reason would not settle this. **A short answer per number is enough:** applicable/not applicable; exact supported source and field if available; known coverage/retention limit. “Not customer-accessible” is useful. If internal retention cannot be confirmed, please say so rather than equating it with “not retained” or “impossible to reconstruct.” Partial answers are welcome. This remains a general, read-only capability question on Hobby: no account/project identifiers, private logs, attachments, upgrades, paid services, invocations, deployments or configuration changes are requested. Thank you.
Juanclases33 5979 **Urgent: final consolidated follow-up — six unresolved evidence questions** Hi Amy and Vercel team, I have followed the documentation and Ask AI guidance, as detailed in post 3. Those sources did not settle the six distinctions below. The single-human Owner role/count is already resolved; I am not asking to reopen it. **I need a concrete response as soon as possible to finish the affected conclusions of a technical review. Please prioritize a point-by-point answer today if possible.** If that is not possible, please identify the responsible team and a specific date for a substantive update, or state directly that this channel cannot provide the requested clarification. This is my final follow-up; I cannot keep the review on hold indefinitely. It is not a request to close unresolved questions. The scope remains a Git-connected Hobby project and existing evidence, not an upgrade or a proposed implementation: 1. **Direct versus inherited access:** Are these distinct membership categories applicable to a single-Owner Hobby project, or not applicable? If applicable, how is the Owner classified, and which supported source defines/exposes aggregate counts? Please distinguish effective permissions from stored assignments; absence of a role-management UI does not establish zero assignments. 2. **Overlap:** If those categories apply, can the Owner be in both? What supported aggregate source or documented rule establishes overlap without member identities? If the category does not apply, please explicitly confirm that rather than interpreting an unavailable count as zero. 3. **Historical Node.js runtime:** Without a previously logged process.version, is there a retained record of the exact runtime minor/patch for an existing deployment at a specified past timestamp and region? If yes, which source/field, access and retention? A configured major, build-time version or new invocation is not the historical runtime. 4. **Installed function output:** Is there a supported read-only immutable digest/manifest identifying the function artifact actually installed for an existing deployment? Source files, Git SHA and build-cache hashes do not by themselves identify that output. If it is not customer-accessible, please confirm that specific limit. 5. **Artifact provenance:** Is there a retained record binding that installed output to source commit, resolved dependencies, build, deployment, environment and timestamp? Which parts of that chain are covered, and which are not? If only a provider confirmation can establish it, is that available through a free official channel? 6. **Historical non-Fluid duration:** For the non-Fluid Hobby context on 11 October 2026, does a blank project Max Duration field with placeholder 10 establish the applicable default, or can another setting override it? What retained record establishes the project setting/default at that time when the project response omits the relevant keys? Do project-function-max-duration and project-functions-fluid-enabled/disabled Activity payloads retain old/new values, with what retention/read-only access? Current Fluid limits and later deployment snapshots concern different contexts. The previous filtered read yielded no usable historical value; repeating it without a new source/field or reason would not answer this. **A short, explicit response for each number is enough:** applicability; exact supported source/field and its scope/retention if available; otherwise the known limitation. Please distinguish **not exposed to customers**, **not retained**, **not retrospectively reconstructible**, and **not known by the responding team**. If internal retention is unknown, please say so. Partial technical answers are welcome; a generic documentation/Ask AI referral alone leaves these questions unanswered. Without supported answers, I will record the affected conclusions as unverified and continue independent work, not assume that the records do not exist or mark these questions solved. Any later factual answer can still be incorporated. This is a general capability request: no company/account/project identifiers, credentials, private records, logs or attachments. No paid support, upgrades, new permissions, production invocations, deployments or configuration changes are requested. Thank you.
system If you're having trouble deploying an Express app, this guide can help. https://vercel.com/guides/using-express-with-vercel You can also ask v0 for suggestions tailored to your own project setup.
Group-IB DRP Dear Vercel Support, Can we get your urgent assistance for the reported phishing on: https://alert-me.vercel.app/ Your urgent support is highly appreciated.
Group-IB DRP @anshumanb @pawlean can you please support in this report. We have submitted multiple reports on the abuse form.
Anshuman Bhardwaj Hi Julian, if I understand it correctly, your GitHub account was made with an Apple Private Relay email? But, you no longer have access to that email to login. If your GitHub is linked with another account and you want to relink it to this one, you can remove it from the Authentication Settings in the 1st account and then connect it to this one (given you can log into both of them).
Julian B I have access to the Apple Private relay email, the issue is that once I re-connected Github to another vercel made account. It disconnected the authenticated account that i originally made, so when I went to reauthenticate via the Github option. Vercel wants to verify via a code which sends to that Apple Private Relay email. Apple requires 'Sign in with Apple' apps to be given permission upon registering to become approved. Then you are able to forward emails to another account, for example. Incoming Apple Private Relay Email (Vercel Confirmation code) - Forward to - another personal email So because that Apple Private Relay email address was not used to make a vercel account, it was done on the Github side. Basically I just need support to change my primary email address on my account so I can login and make sure this doesn't happen again. Hopefully this makes more sense? I've seen some people have similar issues on forums.
Julian B I also think that when my Vercel account was created via the Github option. It obviously registers the email address with Vercel, so Vercel is expecting that email to be able to login. If i change it on the Github side, It just causes more problems and disconnects the ability to receive any email whatsoever to authenticate the login.
Anshuman Bhardwaj Hi @luke-9487, I'm sorry that you had to face this issue. Since it's related to billing, I'd recommend opening a billing-related case at https://vercel.com/help and explaining everything there. Our support team is better equipped with handling billing issues.
Anthony Shew Copy-pasting from https://community.vercel.com/t/introducing-vercel-ci/51548#post_5 > Hey, Luke, sorry for the trouble. We had a bug that ended up overbilling some folks. We've applied credits to the affected customers so you'll see our mistake covered on your next invoice. Sorry again for the trouble! Additionally, I see you're also mentioning here that you had tasks hanging open on this post. That was the same bug, and is now remediated.
