Code review/Patch board

Often people complain that their patches fall through the cracks or that it can be really difficult to get reviews for some patches. This is an experimental process meant to address that. It is experiment, so may change or be discarded.

Guidelines

 * If you list a patch, then you are taking responsibility for addressing any code review.
 * Any -1s from humans or Jenkins should already have been addressed.
 * Patches should have already been tested and (in theory) ready for an immediate +2. Work in progress patches should not be included.
 * It should apply cleanly to master or have recently been rebased.
 * Listed patches should have no-non trivial changes or reviews on Gerrit for at least a week, at time of listing.
 * Once someone reviews your patch (Either +2's or -1's it) it goes off the list. Reviewers are encouraged to re-review patches once the original contributor fixes the issues. If the patch gets stuck again, it is also allowed to go back on the list
 * For now, only patches to MediaWiki core or a Wikimedia-deployed extension. (In future maybe we'll expand to other things if this goes well.)
 * Avoid controversial patches - whether from an architectural or user perspective. This process is not a replacement for TDF/TechCom, Phabricator discussions or a wikitech-l post.
 * If there is active disagreement about whether the thing the patch is doing is a good idea in principle, you have to get consensus on that before bringing it here.
 * Smaller patches will get reviewed faster and are preferred. Try to avoid "XL" patches in Gerrit when possible. Consider splitting large patches into multiple separate dependent patches

Patches
archive of reviewed patches You can only have one patch listed at a time, add new entries to the bottom. If you change which patch you want reviewed, it should go back to the bottom.
 * Add your patch here!