)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"219034a25f0bd800af5c76ff9ae2a39b7665a961","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"520a0a12_d71c6df5","updated":"2024-05-15 00:35:24.000000000","message":"Actually, maybe the original patch that introduced parent_port should be reverted; it added parent_port to states attribute for event payload, and this field is not supposed to carry data for random objects, only for the actual object that it belongs to. (so states \u003d\u003d list of states for the same object).\n\nNeed to think a bit more on the problem.","commit_id":"3b10ec44615f1ea4f3dbddc24f6385b00372f04d"},{"author":{"_account_id":15554,"name":"Bence Romsics","email":"bence.romsics@gmail.com","username":"ebenrom","status":"inactive contributor"},"change_message_id":"af3bb4c1fc83a70bcecb741112fa7499caed7fd9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"b5397b4e_532de60f","in_reply_to":"520a0a12_d71c6df5","updated":"2024-05-15 13:34:36.000000000","message":"Please also see my comment in the bug report about considering another revert:\n\nhttps://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2065707/comments/2","commit_id":"3b10ec44615f1ea4f3dbddc24f6385b00372f04d"},{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"0b1cc408eff3444962f6dab9a2ea72d0e83b5e01","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"d56ceabb_fccdc5aa","in_reply_to":"6766d727_1f4176e9","updated":"2024-05-16 15:27:33.000000000","message":"Thank you. I will post a revert.","commit_id":"3b10ec44615f1ea4f3dbddc24f6385b00372f04d"},{"author":{"_account_id":15554,"name":"Bence Romsics","email":"bence.romsics@gmail.com","username":"ebenrom","status":"inactive contributor"},"change_message_id":"3bbd38b0f86d8d28755813cc10e6c4352ce4b168","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"6766d727_1f4176e9","in_reply_to":"7bb52a28_7d379ce6","updated":"2024-05-16 09:06:13.000000000","message":"\u003e unnecessarily blocking a legit operation for ml2/ovn\n\nYes, unfortunately that seems to be the case to me. However I can fully understand why the patch was created in the first place because we seem to have practically zero documentation explaining the behavior difference between mechanism drivers.","commit_id":"3b10ec44615f1ea4f3dbddc24f6385b00372f04d"},{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"52e7c1e80e6edea9255998791aecd22ef3beb8b2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"7bb52a28_7d379ce6","in_reply_to":"b5397b4e_532de60f","updated":"2024-05-15 14:51:58.000000000","message":"Thanks Bence! So - have we broken the callbacks / RPC API while also unnecessarily blocking a legit operation for ml2/ovn? You mean there was no good reason for the original patch in the first place?","commit_id":"3b10ec44615f1ea4f3dbddc24f6385b00372f04d"}]}