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 an experiment, so it may change or be discarded.

In short - each person is allowed to list one of their patches on this board that they would really like to see reviewed. You can only list one patch at a time, and it should be a patch that you have been unable to get review through normal means.

Hopefully by listing your patch here, you can finally receive the review you need to get your patch moving.

Guidelines[edit]

Listing patches[edit]

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.
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
You may wish to tag your patch with the hashtag patchboard — a list of all patchboard-tagged patches can be found here.

Reviewing patches[edit]

You should be familiar with how to review Gerrit patches, and the guidelines for a healthy code review culture — giving and receiving feedback is hard, and a little compassion and patience goes a long way!
If you are going to give a patch a -1, please move it to the in progress section below.

Patches[edit]

archive of patches that are merged or abandoned

Inbox[edit]

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.

Pppery: [mediawiki/extensions/LabeledSectionTransclusion] 917949 — Remove non-functional loop detection code
alistair3149: [mediawiki/extensions/ConfirmEdit] 539679 — Add v3 as possible version for ReCaptcha
Add your patch here!

In progress[edit]

If you're reviewing a patch, and you give it a -1, move it to this section. Ideally, the same reviewer should re-review it when the original contributor fixes the issues. Once a patch is either merged, abandoned or given a -2, it should be moved to the archives. Patches with a -1 pending for more than two weeks can also be moved to the archive. If after the patch has had its issues resolved it gets stuck again for whatever reason, the original contributor is allowed to move it back to the patches section in the spot where it originally was.

Stjn: [mediawiki/extensions/CharInsert] 445633 — Make \n insert line breaks in CharInsert. Simple patch from 2018, where Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) did most of the work. Still not merged. Maybe one day. stjn^[ru] 22:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reviewing this —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 08:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TheDJ: Do you intend to finish reviewing this? It's been pending without action for months. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 20:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it got kinda stuck again. I was looking into how and why any of that works as it does (per Gergo's comments, but its such a muddy history. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]