Change 373735 had a related patch set uploaded (by Reception123; owner: Reception123):
[mediawiki/extensions/GraphViz@master] Convert GraphViz to use extension registration

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/373735

Anyone got time to review the above patch?

Is there somebody at WMF dealing with this kind of changes? I know of another extension which is stock for months now due to missing +2. I fear that you effort ends up in the void too.

@Welterkj FYI since you are a kind of the master of this extension. :)

In T173209#3780517, @Kghbln wrote:

Is there somebody at WMF dealing with this kind of changes?

No, as WMF folks are not some fallback to handle code reviews for all and any of the thousands of MediaWiki extensions out there... :-/

For references,

• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GraphViz lists original authors (but they are not necessarily maintainers anymore)
• https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/members/943/ lists folks interested / following this Phab project
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers does not list GraphViz (meh)
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Reviewers does not list GraphViz and reviewers either (meh).
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Code_review/Getting_reviews offers general info (which might not be helpful here either)

No, as WMF folks are not some fallback to handle code reviews for all and any of the thousands of MediaWiki extensions out there... :-/

Fair enough. I suggest to only allow open push for third party repos here. @Samwilson You will have to find somebody with +2.

@Welterkj would you be interested in adding me as a co-maintainer? I'd be happy to help, and wouldn't make any changes without due process.

If you don't have time to maintain GraphViz, having someone else around could speed things up.

@Samwilson, yes, I'd be very happy to have you as a co-maintainer! My apologies for slowing things down. I'm even rusty in gerrit and couldn't find a spot to add a code comment. My question is, what is the rationale for bumping the version all the way up to 3.0.0? Also, has anyone tested the extension with the full set of edits? If it still works I will quickly get out of the way :)

@Welterkj don't feel bad about finding Gerrit rather confusing, I think there's a fair bit of agreement that it's an overly-complicated UI! To add code comments you open a file's diff and click a line number to add a comment.

And you're quite right about not needing to bump the version. I think I was coming from the point of view of the public *code* API changing in a non-backwards compatible way, but of course actually the user and administrator interfaces for the extension haven't changed at all (i.e. no action will need to be taken to upgrade) and so I think this can just be 2.1.1. Does that sound ok?

Currently GraphViz supports MW 1.23+. The proposed change breaks compatibility with MW 1.28 and earlier due to support for manifest version 2 so I personally think that a 3.0.0 is appropriate or at least we should have a 2.2.0.

I am in agreement with @Samwilson with respect to the new version number, i.e. 2.1.1. However, the dependencies in composer.json do need to be updated so that installations with MW versions <= 1.28 do not automatically upgrade the GraphViz extension to an incompatible version. The version history needs to be updated as well. Sorry to make these comments here. I'll get them into gerrit when I have a little more time.

Hm yes, @Kghbln is right: that's why I bumped it to 3.0.0 before: it *is* a backwards-incompatible change, and therefore the major version should increment.

I've updated the release notes, and I've also added the MediaWiki and ImageMap requirements to extension.json.

Change 373735 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/GraphViz@master] Convert to extension registration and PSR4

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/373735