"review-queue" sounds way too vague. Better name needed.

Extension-Review-Queue?

In T102512#1366355, @Legoktm wrote:

Extension-Review-Queue?

+1

From the tracking task itself (where a few of us were discussing this back in September 2015...

In T33235#1680167, @Qgil wrote:

Based on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Review_queue, #Wikimedia-Deployment-Review-Queue? "Wikimedia" or "Queue" are candidates to be cut if the name is still too long.

In T33235#1680299, @Krenair wrote:

There is Wikimedia-Extension-setup but I'd prefer we merge that into Wikimedia-Site-requests and either reuse it for, or have a separate project for, new (I.e. currently not deployed to wikimedia production at all) extension deployment requests (as opposed to the common already-in-prod extension deployment requests that can be as simple as the config changes).

In T33235#1683316, @greg wrote:

I like merging #-extension-setup and #-site-requests and adding #wikimedia-production-review

-production-review would be for tracking reviews for all new things going to production that might need it. IOW, not just extensions as it could be a new (micro)service.

I explicitly removed "queue" from the name as it's not exactly a queue, and that doesn't help a user figure out the purpose of the project.

I used "production" as that's what this is really about and it clarifies that caring about production level architecture is needed (database interaction/performance review, as needed, for example).

In T33235#1683320, @greg wrote:

oh, and to be clear, we need to make it clear in the description of the project what the policy/procedure is (like to that /Review_queue page, I suppose) and make sure that people only add the single tracking task per thing (service/extension/whatever) is in this project. We don't want 4+ tasks (security, design, community-consensus, etc) per thing in this project, that's too much noise. :-)

In T33235#1688510, @Aklapper wrote:

+1 to greg's last two comments.

so #extension-review-queue or #wikimedia-production-review ?

Heh, I like #wikimedia-production-review better than what I proposed over a year ago.

Upping priority because of the ORES incident yesterday which one part was a service not being setup in Beta Cluster properly before it going to production (see T141825).

In T102512#2504339 I said that it'd probably be good to combine new extensions and services into this queue as they have similar review processes. If combining is a bad idea we can separate them out.

I'll open another task about clarifying the pre-deploy checklist for new services. If that one turns out to want a distinct project then we'll go with @Legoktm 's original project name.

In T102512#2515942, @greg wrote:

I'll open another task about clarifying the pre-deploy checklist for new services. If that one turns out to want a distinct project then we'll go with @Legoktm 's original project name.

T141897: Review new service 'pre-deployment to production' checklist

Support migration. The task graph is unusable due to too many tasks; #wikimedia-production-review sounds good. Can a bot be tasked to do it to avoid spamming IRC/email inboxes? Thanks!

Afraid of bikeshedding, but #wikimedia-production-review can mean a lot ("This software bug in production should really get reviewed and fixed!").
If there is no such review process for non-production, could #deployment-review-requests suffice? (Though that could still cover requests for SWAT?)

wikimedia-extension-review-queue perhaps?

In T102512#3549251, @MarcoAurelio wrote:

wikimedia-extension-review-queue perhaps?

+1.
</bikeshed>

Created Wikimedia-extension-review-queue

All open tasks are now in that tag. Done? I guess if there's any follow-up (organization etc) that can happen elsewhere.