[17:58:44] hi all - I would like to get more experience with reviewing MW patches so feel free to send some patches to me to take a look on [18:30:55] hey Majavah, I'm not sure how well monitored this channel is for things like that. To be honest, I'm not sure what a good channel is for such things. [18:31:33] right now is an especially lousy time because staff are on vacation through the first, although some people poke their heads in occasionaly [18:32:17] I'll make a note to ask at our team meeting about the best way to get the word out, if someone has not gotten back to you sooner. [18:36:56] while you're in here, I have a question about https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/Renameuser/+/652179 were I see you are converting things to use dependency injection (yay!)... when we're changing the signature of a public constructor like that, is there a procedure we go through of first allowing the old style calls... [18:37:49] ...to be used, and then dropping backwards compatibility later? I haven't really kept on up deprecations except to go "yep looks like it works" or "mm think it will break something". [18:47:01] I think that's "fine" [18:47:18] The calling stuffs are defined in extension.json [18:48:17] * Reedy looks if there's other callers [18:58:32] apergos: thanks! [18:59:17] also afaik that constructor not `@newable` so it's not expected to be stable, and it's defined in extension.json so it should be provided every time [18:59:19] sure thing! and Reedy since you're here :-P [18:59:33] also Reedy good point on 1.36, updated the patch [18:59:43] any ideas about how to get the word out that we have someone asking for more patches to review? [19:00:05] ah it's not marked as @newable, right. [19:00:24] I also have patches that someone else could review, CA doesn't have any defined teams that I could send them :P [19:00:32] also I don't have +2 if that makes things any different