I’ve got a feeling other people do still use this….

So while I’m for the WMF not being the primary maintainer, I don’t know if we should be archiving it (yet?).

CC @ashley

In T309052#7951850, @Reedy wrote:

So while I’m for the WMF not being the primary maintainer, I don’t know if we should be archiving it (yet?).

Per T48636#501632, my understanding is that the maintainership change took place back in 2013.

Unfortunately ShoutWiki no longer internally uses CodeReview (we use Phabricator, like all the cool kids do, and the repos are - finally - git ones, not SVN), but despite that I'm not exactly seeing solid arguments for archiving the CodeReview extension.

It's reasonably feature-complete and should be pretty functional and well-tested; as the workboard here shows, there are bugs and feature requests, of course, for no software is ever perfect. Things like T304276: Fix use of successbox in CodeReview are basic housekeeping and essentially not even a bug in the extension but rather an incompatibility caused by how the core software evolves. Of course such things are likely to be actioned far quicker than e.g. T152355: Update extension to also support git.

The WMF is no longer supporting CodeReview and while I disagree with the decision, what's done is done. Can we now treat CodeReview like ArticleFeedbackv5 and/or any other similar extension(s) that may have originated at the Foundation but is no longer primarily maintained by the Foundation?

There are some tasks that explicitly will not be fixed by WMF:
T173589: CodeReview extension reads from updatelog table in onLoadExtensionSchemaUpdates breaking sql.php maintaince script when run on different cluster
T268541: Convert CodeReview to AbstractSchema
T218079: CodeRevisionListView::getRevCount is creating slow queries on mediawiki.org

In T309052#7952426, @ashley wrote:

In T309052#7951850, @Reedy wrote:

So while I’m for the WMF not being the primary maintainer, I don’t know if we should be archiving it (yet?).

Per T48636#501632, my understanding is that the maintainership change took place back in 2013.

Delighted to Decline this if people really are using it. https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:CodeReview last time I used it (and it worked) said no-one did, IIRC?

In T309052#7957014, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

Delighted to Decline this if people really are using it. https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:CodeReview last time I used it (and it worked) said no-one did, IIRC?

WORKSFORME currently, the list shows 12 wikis. Granted, none of those 12 are running a supported version of MW (as defined in mw:Version lifecycle) but "why are people not updating their MediaWiki instances in a timely manner?" is a bigger-than-life question that's well out of scope for this task. :-)

In any case, Subversion is somewhat of a legacy VCS these days, sadly, which probably explains why there are so few sites using CodeReview. I'm sure it'd be a whole different matter if the extension supported git...and it's something I'd like to make happen one day, but I sadly cannot commit to implementing such a feature in any well-defined timeframe.

Change 907488 had a related patch set uploaded (by Amire80; author: Amire80):

[translatewiki@master] Archive several extensions

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/907488

Change 907488 merged by jenkins-bot:

[translatewiki@master] Archive several extensions

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/907488

In T309052#7957030, @ashley wrote:

In T309052#7957014, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

Delighted to Decline this if people really are using it. https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:CodeReview last time I used it (and it worked) said no-one did, IIRC?

WORKSFORME currently, the list shows 12 wikis. […]

Should we un-archive the page at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CodeReview?

In T309052#9147964, @Krinkle wrote:

In T309052#7957030, @ashley wrote:

In T309052#7957014, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

Delighted to Decline this if people really are using it. https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:CodeReview last time I used it (and it worked) said no-one did, IIRC?

WORKSFORME currently, the list shows 12 wikis. […]

Should we un-archive the page at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CodeReview?

I'm okay with whatever; that said, I'd like to thank you for asking that. It was somewhat surprising, to say the very least, to see this task move forward at the pace that it did 😕 Personally I don't think there's much of a point to aggressively archiving extensions that still work, but...this probably is neither the first nor the last time things happen without maintainer input. It does make me question, though, as to the entire point of having named maintainers for various things: is there even a point if and when their input is neither needed nor valued?
I sure do hope that archival without input from an active maintainer who has been a community member for well over a decade does not become a trend, for there are other, more useful things that were originally developed by the WMF, for the WMF but are no longer used there, but which continue having external users who are very fond of said things. (ArticleFeedbackv5 comes to mind as one such extension.)

CodeReview, admittedly, is an odd extension in a way, as it originated at the WMF for the WMF, but back when SVN was a more relevant version control system, it was used by several other parties, including us at ShoutWiki; we no longer use neither SVN nor CodeReview, we use git and Phabricator.
However, unlike things like the Contributors or Favorites extensions, which I've recently "saved" from archival, to my knowledge CodeReview should require no patches to work, it should Just Work™. Furthermore, one could use it with the dumps of MW.org data since the static HTML versions generated from CodeReview data are not perfect, e.g. views like Special:Code/MediaWiki/author/ashley were not dumped.

@ashley I appreciate your energy, but CodeReview was primarily developed for Wikimedia Foundation need and we have stopped using it a decade ago as we switched to git and Gerrit. It seems ShoutWiki was one of the sole other users and have since switched to Phabricator. Therefore, although the extension work, I don't see a need to keep maintaining it given nobody uses it beside doing it for the sake of it.

Change #1016297 had a related patch set uploaded (by Hashar; author: Hashar):

[mediawiki/extensions/CodeReview@master] Archive extension

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1016297

Change #1016298 had a related patch set uploaded (by Hashar; author: Hashar):

[integration/config@master] Archive mediawiki/extensions/CodeReview

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1016298

Change #1016299 had a related patch set uploaded (by Hashar; author: Hashar):

[mediawiki/extensions@master] Remove CodeReview

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1016299

Change #1016299 merged by Hashar:

[mediawiki/extensions@master] Remove CodeReview

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1016299

Change #1016297 merged by Hashar:

[mediawiki/extensions/CodeReview@master] Archive extension

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1016297

Change #1016298 merged by jenkins-bot:

[integration/config@master] Archive mediawiki/extensions/CodeReview

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1016298