[20:17:30] It has been over a month since I last updated a change that adds a devcontainer.json file. Yet the change hasn't been code reviewed at all. I tried looking for someone who could review and even added them but I don't think I added the right person. What can I do to speed up the process? [20:19:02] You should include a link to your change here is case someone idling is involved in that area of the code base [20:19:46] I guess that would be https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/core/+/1128566 [20:20:55] I don't even know if I added the right contact to the reviewers part [20:21:00] That is what I would like checked [20:21:17] I've never heard of devcontainer before, so i suppose part of the issue is deciding if that is widespread enough to warrant including the file in mediawiki (Pppery's concern) [20:21:56] umm, yeah, i think there are probably better people to add [20:22:03] let me think [20:22:34] guess i didn't think fast enough [20:23:42] There's discussion on the bug too [20:23:57] hmm, i would guess someone on dev experience would be the appropriate person [20:24:14] but dev experience seems to be broken into 5 sub teams, none of which are about the dev experience :P [20:25:31] Ah, so 2 separate people asking wtf is dev containers [20:26:21] bawolff: ok to bash 21:24:14 but dev experience seems to be broken into 5 sub teams, none of which are about the dev experience :P ? [20:27:00] lol, sure why not. Hopefully dev experience can take it as a joke :) [20:28:16] https://bash.toolforge.org/quip/oJRh75YBvg159pQryoOL [20:28:35] yet another case of volunteers simply giving up because of our review (notification) problem. I think we'd need to escalate that to upper management to get it prioritized and a top-down approach. [20:29:16] maybe hire a dedicated person like a bug wrangler but for code review [20:29:50] not to do the code review, but to nudge the right people [20:30:52] for that patch, the issue is not a code review problem - it is a decision making problem [20:31:34] if it was only that then the user would have gotten a response on their patch though saying that [20:32:05] That patch is an accountability issue [20:32:12] people (including those with ability to merge it) have raised concerns, both on the patch and in phabricator [20:32:27] But like how many areas are blank on Developers/Maintainers [20:32:36] but no-one feels like they have the authority to either overrule those conserns and merge it, or to make a final decision that it should in [20:32:52] oh, ok, I just believed them saying they got nothing [20:33:03] because that is also very commonm [20:33:14] nevermind this specific one then [20:33:34] and because there's no individual/small group who has "ownership" of that, nor any process to make a decision as a whole for the "mediawiki developers" (whatever that would even mean), it's sitting in limbo [20:34:39] fwiw, I've looked at the patch several times when it's been mentioned here, I too have a weak preference for not including that in the repo but feel like Bryan and Pppery have already said what I would have to say about it so didn't interact with it any further [20:35:04] yeah, this looks like "no one feels empowered to say no" to me [20:35:24] and the change isn't well-explained enough to get anyone to yes [20:58:54] AwesomeAasim: Welcome back [20:59:05] Hi [20:59:23] So there was some discussion about your patch while you were gone [21:00:20] Basically there is a general view that devcontainers is too specific of a technology to warrant inclusion of a config file in mediawiki core at this time [21:00:58] With probably most people being open to being convinced otherwise, but so far being unconvinced [21:01:54] And a further problem that nobody is really in charge of this area, so nobody feels they have the authority to say no [21:02:30] Sorry this is probably not what you want to hear, but unless something changes or somebody gets convinced, the patch is probably being rejected [21:13:14] Okay [21:36:12] I abandoned that change and I instead decided to add the devcontainer directory to gitignore: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/core/+/1148460 [21:37:00] yeah, that seems fair. If we aren't going to allow the config file specificly, might as well .gitignore it [21:37:50] Can you run recheck? [21:42:35] Maybe in the future WMF decides to add their own devcontainer.json to the repo... Maybe... I probably won't bet on it for now... [21:45:47] All depends what dev envs people are using [21:49:09] Things were easier when everyone just apt-get install apache2 mysql php ;)