)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"f577d2b94e2b2cc91265312627e4f7da847d9b6d","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"162ecdd9_b28fa014","updated":"2023-08-25 15:51:00.000000000","message":"by the way i -w\u0027d this becaue we are going to proceed with gibis\n\nchanges\nhttps://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/892793\nand \nhttps://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/892791\n\nto adress the final leaks\nand then ill prepare a separate change that only does the spawn_n to spawn change after that  which i expect to be much smaller.\n\nwe can then also discuss the merrits of that change selerpately form fixing the leaks so that a better seperation of concerns over all","commit_id":"557e9debe1900a5bba1a190044e397cc82f6bc52"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"ef0fea990d6e5a3f52a40d74d355dbf2e43ef6d5","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"5e354688_074b79b0","updated":"2023-08-25 12:49:25.000000000","message":"recheck intermitent functional failure? lets see if it happens again","commit_id":"557e9debe1900a5bba1a190044e397cc82f6bc52"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"460b859cac012c51765cb18fc34c50527a80d760","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"5519de35_e5c1f324","updated":"2023-08-26 03:56:32.000000000","message":"Doing this seems consistent with discussion in https://github.com/eventlet/eventlet/issues/731 where the maintainers stated that spawn_n is not well defined and as a result will not be modified going forward, in the case of bugs etc.\n\nAside from that, I\u0027m wondering if we should also poison eventlet.spawn_n in case of future usage attempts. I guess it\u0027s unlikely given the removal of nova.utils.spawn_n but just something to consider.","commit_id":"66c107106ea72b497e0eeecd07401e74a31b6a93"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"b4626c2c83e75403b4e045cea04532f9596834a3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"bba7f1c1_1a49d6db","in_reply_to":"5519de35_e5c1f324","updated":"2023-08-26 17:19:40.000000000","message":"we have a hacking check that prevent direct use of eventlet.spawn or spwan_n\nim not sure if we can directly poision eventlet.spawn_n becaue i think it gets used internnaly in some cases and it might be used by things like os-brick or oslo.\n\nthat said i had considered doing\n\neventlet.spwan_n \u003d eventlet.spawn\n\ni didnt basically for the same reason i dont know if that would break anything.\n\nbut its a good guestion we proably could poision it in the unit test and perhaps the functional tests depending on what we are usign transitivly.","commit_id":"66c107106ea72b497e0eeecd07401e74a31b6a93"}]}