[02:05:17] <TheSandDoctor>	 @James_F: why are we skipping 7?
[02:05:24] <TheSandDoctor>	 Because 7 ate 9?
[02:05:26] <TheSandDoctor>	 Or?
[02:05:28] <TheSandDoctor>	 :P
[02:07:31] <Reedy>	 If we have no deploy weeks, we skip the numbers
[02:16:08] <rileyh>	 Reedy: it’s a joke. 😂
[02:18:59] <TheSandDoctor>	 It’s just TSD up to his ol’ jokes and puns
[02:19:17] * TheSandDoctor loves puns. Don’t normally see the opportunity for a pun/“dad” joke
[02:19:20] <TheSandDoctor>	 :P
[17:30:34] <dmaza>	 quick question, for a new SpecialPage now that we are allowed and can inject services and configs into it, is it preferred to access configs via SpecialPage::getConfig() which uses the RequestContext  or can we move forward and inject the needed configs into the class as if it were a Service/Manager ?
[19:04:43] <anomie>	 dmaza: I don't know of any preference one way or the other. But I don't think there's support for injecting a ServiceOptions directly, if that's what you're asking about. It's limited to services that you can get from MediaWikiServices->get(), like 'MainConfig' or 'ConfigFactory'. You could, though, use a factory function/Closure that takes the 'MainConfig' and creates a ServiceOptions to pass to __construct() if you really want.
[19:55:40] <dmaza>	 Thank you @anomie. We were curious if there was a convention about this since at least for services we want to get away from getting the config from the RequestContext.