I'm not sure about the Schema-change part. That tag claims to be about actual schema changes. Glancing through the tasks currently in the schema change column of MediaWiki-libs-Rdbms, it seems a combination of actual schema changes, requests for maintenance scripts related to schema changes, and bugs in the updater when applying schema changes.

Other than that, sure. But let's also ping the DBAs in case they have any input.

So, from my side, this is the way I read those tags:

Schema-change is where a discussion about an upcoming schema change might happen (it can also happen with MediaWiki-libs-Rdbms, in fact, I have seen that happening more often with that tag lately).
Schema-change-in-production is when a change is ready to happen and is blocked on DBAs and depends on us to be able to release something (ie: adding an index or a new column).
We have also had schema changes which are just clean up, and are not blocking anything (ie: dropping a non used column). I tend to remove the Schema-change-in-production tag from there and just tag DBA as it is just backlog for us and nothing is really being blocked.

I don't personally mind much about the process with Schema-change and MediaWiki-libs-Rdbms for the schema changes discussions and then once it is ready to be sent to the DBAs keep following the schema change procedure that will get the schema change template and Schema-change-in-production tag.

In T228360#5345746, @Anomie wrote:

I'm not sure about the Schema-change part.

Thanks, I'm not actually very familiar with the Phabricator workflow used by others for schema changes. I'll defer to you and others on what's current practice and what would work best/better for you (plural).

In T228360#5345746, @Anomie wrote:

Glancing through the tasks currently in the schema change column of #mediawiki-database, it seems a combination of actual schema changes, requests for maintenance scripts related to schema changes, and bugs in the updater when applying schema changes.

Would using MediaWiki-Maintenance-system and/or MediaWiki-Installer be a more suitable place for those task two kinds of tasks? I'm also hoping to generally push tasks more towards feature-based areas. So for example an issue with a maintenance script or db-updater for a ResourceLoader database table would, I think, be best benefit the reporter, if it were organised under MediaWiki-ResourceLoader and not Maintenance-scripts or Installer.

I personally don't have any opinion about MediaWiki-libs-Rdbms I don't interact with it or need it or I am not subscribed to it. It is nice that we are pinged here because of the obvious connection with DBA (thanks!) but I will let any users or potential users decide its usefulness (redefine it, rename it, reorganize it, delete it, merge it, etc.). I believe it was useful in the past because there was no official owner to the RDBMS, but I think that is no longer the case.

The only semi-offtopic proposal I made was to create #query-optimization as a yellow tag (name could be something else) which may cover some of those, and would be handled by #DBAs (infra solution) and the corresponding codebase owner (code solution). But that is a separate issue.

In T228360#5345910, @Krinkle wrote:

Would using MediaWiki-Maintenance-system and/or MediaWiki-Installer be a more suitable place for those task two kinds of tasks?

Yes, probably.

I'm also hoping to generally push tasks more towards feature-based areas. So for example an issue with a maintenance script or db-updater for a ResourceLoader database table would, I think, be best benefit the reporter, if it were organised under MediaWiki-ResourceLoader and not Maintenance-scripts or Installer.

Since Phab supports multiple tags on a task, depending on the details of the bug I might tag it with both. Particularly since a person searching for it might not know it's an RL table but does know it affects MediaWiki-Installer.

From a bug filer perspective, Wikimedia-Rdbms is really not a great project name. We usually don't prefix library phabricator projects with Wikimedia- (most Wikimedia- projects are Wikimedia specific, whereas libraries are the exact opposite), and I don't think most people will equate Rdbms == Database issues. Calling it just Database might be a little too general though.

The other changes look good, but I'm also not an active user of this project.

In T228360#5348427, @Legoktm wrote:

[..], and I don't think most people will equate Rdbms == Database issues.

Hm.. did you mean this as a good thing or a bad thing? I ask because, that which most people would classify as "Database issues", I think, would be out of scope for this tag. Rather focussing on issues with, and ideas for, the wikimedia/rdbms library. The label "Database" would indeed be too generic and also isn't what the library is called (it's called wikimedia/rdbms).

Our other libraries have fairly noun-able names that are unlikely to be confused with a general technical term when written down (at-ease, WrappedString, …). But, the "rdbms" library seems hard or awkward to refer to as "rdbms". I've generally referred to it as "Wikimedia rdbms" or "lib rdbms". What should we call the Phabricator project? Or should we come up with a new name and use that for both the Phabricator workboard and the Composer package? (but as PHP namespace?)

I've renamed the project from MediaWiki-Database to Wikimedia-Rdbms (keeping an alias for compat). I'll leave this task open for better suggestions.

@Aklapper I noticed you renamed the workboard from Wikimedia-Rdbms to Mediawiki-Rdbms. I can speculate about reasons, but could you briefly explain the reason here for the record?

@Krinkle: I don't know what "Wikimedia-Rdbms" is supposed to be so I expected it to be a typo that I fixed, but now I saw T228360#5358106... Isn't that tag about the MediaWiki Core codebase, as its project description says? If it is not, then what is that Rdbms which is on Wikimedia servers but not in MediaWiki Core?

@Aklapper It is indeed common to use "MediaWiki" to refer to the general and re-usable software and "Wikimedia" for WMF-specific things. However, this mainly applies to social and organisational concepts. For the software libraries we maintain, it is (unfortunately) the opposite.

The various open-source software libraries (doc link, distro link) that we maintain and publish are published as "Wikimedia". The idea here is to emphasise that these are not merely part of MediaWiki core, but re-usable more widely. Libraries such as wikimedia/cdb, wikimedia/utfnormal, wikimedia/WrappedString, and many more. The rdbms is also one of those. Our Phabricator convention for the "MediaWiki-" prefix is primarily for components part of core, not for separate libraries. Those have their own component (e.g. MediaWiki-libs-WrappedString), where we omit the "Wikimedia-" prefix presumably because the remaining part is clear and unambiguous enough.

However, given the generic nature of the abbreviation "rdbms" I named the Phabricator project "Wikimedia-Rdbms" instead.

I've renamed it back because it's not a general MediaWiki core components, and not organised in the "MediaWiki\" namespace in PHP. It is wikimedia/rdbms. But, as the previous comment from mine, I am open to better names for the Phabricator project :)