)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":17685,"name":"Elod Illes","email":"elod.illes@est.tech","username":"elod.illes"},"change_message_id":"0cca22a434fcd6f4e0c17651599f1825154eb22a","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"currently under acl control in the project config repo."},{"line_number":11,"context_line":""},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"The range -1..+2 was chosen to have parity with all"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"existing uses fo the label for consitency."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"The ablity set the new lable is granted only to the core"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"and stable core teams for the updated repos."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"d08b2538_526516dc","line":13,"range":{"start_line":13,"start_character":31,"end_line":13,"end_character":41},"updated":"2021-04-29 16:59:07.000000000","message":"nit: consistency","commit_id":"4dde4b3a211a86e3e25b4af0058b80aece3c2182"},{"author":{"_account_id":17685,"name":"Elod Illes","email":"elod.illes@est.tech","username":"elod.illes"},"change_message_id":"0cca22a434fcd6f4e0c17651599f1825154eb22a","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"currently under acl control in the project config repo."},{"line_number":11,"context_line":""},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"The range -1..+2 was chosen to have parity with all"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"existing uses fo the label for consitency."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"The ablity set the new lable is granted only to the core"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"and stable core teams for the updated repos."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"96eda9d5_650090ea","line":13,"range":{"start_line":13,"start_character":14,"end_line":13,"end_character":16},"updated":"2021-04-29 16:59:07.000000000","message":"nit: for","commit_id":"4dde4b3a211a86e3e25b4af0058b80aece3c2182"},{"author":{"_account_id":17685,"name":"Elod Illes","email":"elod.illes@est.tech","username":"elod.illes"},"change_message_id":"0cca22a434fcd6f4e0c17651599f1825154eb22a","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":12,"context_line":"The range -1..+2 was chosen to have parity with all"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"existing uses fo the label for consitency."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"The ablity set the new lable is granted only to the core"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"and stable core teams for the updated repos."},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Change-Id: I2fd7a6387d2f50eeeb8cef513df19b5696cce55b"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"3439346e_9c62fdbb","line":15,"range":{"start_line":15,"start_character":4,"end_line":15,"end_character":10},"updated":"2021-04-29 16:59:07.000000000","message":"nit: ability","commit_id":"4dde4b3a211a86e3e25b4af0058b80aece3c2182"},{"author":{"_account_id":17685,"name":"Elod Illes","email":"elod.illes@est.tech","username":"elod.illes"},"change_message_id":"0cca22a434fcd6f4e0c17651599f1825154eb22a","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":12,"context_line":"The range -1..+2 was chosen to have parity with all"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"existing uses fo the label for consitency."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"The ablity set the new lable is granted only to the core"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"and stable core teams for the updated repos."},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Change-Id: I2fd7a6387d2f50eeeb8cef513df19b5696cce55b"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"a99860e8_cc7fd5e4","line":15,"range":{"start_line":15,"start_character":23,"end_line":15,"end_character":28},"updated":"2021-04-29 16:59:07.000000000","message":"nit: label","commit_id":"4dde4b3a211a86e3e25b4af0058b80aece3c2182"}],"gerrit/acls/openstack/nova.config":[{"author":{"_account_id":9708,"name":"Balazs Gibizer","display_name":"gibi","email":"gibizer@gmail.com","username":"gibi"},"change_message_id":"a8433d63f865d2fe4f20284e92a2e91772aa4ae6","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":3,"context_line":"label-Code-Review \u003d -2..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"label-Verified \u003d -1..+1 group nova-ci"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"label-Review-Priority \u003d -1..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":""},{"line_number":8,"context_line":"[access \"refs/heads/stable/*\"]"},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"abandon \u003d group Change Owner"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":1,"id":"41ee1f46_f8fcfc14","line":6,"updated":"2021-04-22 11:49:11.000000000","message":"I think lexicographical ordering is needed to pass the job https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/dadd6f526bd3436688dfd54e33a5c018/log/job-output.txt#885","commit_id":"4dde4b3a211a86e3e25b4af0058b80aece3c2182"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"02205a32d7b58df4b84e0ea9a8bb9ea1774dcbc7","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":3,"context_line":"label-Code-Review \u003d -2..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"label-Verified \u003d -1..+1 group nova-ci"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"label-Review-Priority \u003d -1..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":""},{"line_number":8,"context_line":"[access \"refs/heads/stable/*\"]"},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"abandon \u003d group Change Owner"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":1,"id":"04987f0b_294c175e","line":6,"in_reply_to":"41ee1f46_f8fcfc14","updated":"2021-04-22 13:37:06.000000000","message":"ah ok ill fix that based on the outcome of the discussion","commit_id":"4dde4b3a211a86e3e25b4af0058b80aece3c2182"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"88fd20ecb272b1ba93d31ef97cd382766fa40822","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1,"context_line":"[access \"refs/heads/*\"]"},{"line_number":2,"context_line":"abandon \u003d group nova-core"},{"line_number":3,"context_line":"label-Code-Review \u003d -2..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"label-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"label-Verified \u003d -1..+1 group nova-ci"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":2,"id":"050b72af_bb2c44ad","line":4,"range":{"start_line":4,"start_character":0,"end_line":4,"end_character":46},"updated":"2021-05-06 17:01:51.000000000","message":"so main open questoion is should we have\nlabel-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+1 group nova-core\nwith review in meeting/irc by cores for what should get +1\n\nor \nlabel-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+1 group Change Owner\nlabel-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+2 group nova-core\n\nso that they can ask for priority by settin +1 and cores can accpet it by setting +2\n\nthe other workflow questions are here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/787523/2#message-a8433d63f865d2fe4f20284e92a2e91772aa4ae6\n\nbut its simpler to dicusss inline then on a top level comment so let keep it here","commit_id":"102aeb475085e3d97d76f72bae5dfa988b90547d"},{"author":{"_account_id":7166,"name":"Sylvain Bauza","email":"sbauza@redhat.com","username":"sbauza"},"change_message_id":"d1cfee6b7b8c2e25e83c6439ae66b231ca5a2a4d","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1,"context_line":"[access \"refs/heads/*\"]"},{"line_number":2,"context_line":"abandon \u003d group nova-core"},{"line_number":3,"context_line":"label-Code-Review \u003d -2..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"label-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"label-Verified \u003d -1..+1 group nova-ci"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":2,"id":"f23fbafc_bc3e4a20","line":4,"range":{"start_line":4,"start_character":0,"end_line":4,"end_character":46},"in_reply_to":"050b72af_bb2c44ad","updated":"2021-05-07 09:16:05.000000000","message":"I have a few concerns I\u0027d like us to consider before merging :\n- who and how someone could propose a change for being prioritized ?\n- when and how the nova-cores are going to accept a change to be a priority ?\n\nDepending on the outcome of those two questions, then we would see what kind of votes we should use.\n\nFor the moment, I\u0027d prefer we debate over the process itself rather than on the implementation directly.","commit_id":"102aeb475085e3d97d76f72bae5dfa988b90547d"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"02aa2442b9acd2380abaa26eaa8635a29b651f29","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1,"context_line":"[access \"refs/heads/*\"]"},{"line_number":2,"context_line":"abandon \u003d group nova-core"},{"line_number":3,"context_line":"label-Code-Review \u003d -2..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"label-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"label-Verified \u003d -1..+1 group nova-ci"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":2,"id":"4266f9f5_f40089e7","line":4,"range":{"start_line":4,"start_character":0,"end_line":4,"end_character":46},"in_reply_to":"16cba668_af683cd0","updated":"2021-05-07 12:41:56.000000000","message":"i feel like that is far to much process an paper work\n\nwe coudl do that but i feell its overkill.\n\ncahnge owner adding +1 i can get behind with cores adding +2 to accept it.\n\nwhen a core adds a +2 we can arguable but the act of a core adding a +2 i think comes with an implict statement that i (core added +2) am willing to reivew this and would like other to also.\n\nso i think that woudl make it inherntly self limiting as cores are not going to want to over subscibe them selves.\n\n\nwe could use a +3 to signel accpeate if we wanted too or just a +2 since its at least a review priorty for a core but that could also be achive with cores setting +1 and the PTL or cores setting +2 when there is enough concensus.\nthat could be acive by 3 in cores in your case agreeing its a priorty by +1ing it or in a meeting.\n\nbe the intent of this propsal was something very light wight to give us  a quick way to order the open reviews.\n\nif we put too much process around it i feel like we wont use it.","commit_id":"102aeb475085e3d97d76f72bae5dfa988b90547d"},{"author":{"_account_id":9708,"name":"Balazs Gibizer","display_name":"gibi","email":"gibizer@gmail.com","username":"gibi"},"change_message_id":"00fa0fbf2eb12f6ba082030869c697e01c931bda","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1,"context_line":"[access \"refs/heads/*\"]"},{"line_number":2,"context_line":"abandon \u003d group nova-core"},{"line_number":3,"context_line":"label-Code-Review \u003d -2..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"label-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"label-Verified \u003d -1..+1 group nova-ci"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":2,"id":"572b76cc_c06c1468","line":4,"range":{"start_line":4,"start_character":0,"end_line":4,"end_character":46},"in_reply_to":"4266f9f5_f40089e7","updated":"2021-05-10 15:33:59.000000000","message":"My experience from the runways was twofold:\n1) it only worked if there was somebody keeping the etherpad up to date\n2) it was as effective as we kept it honest and did the reviews on the items in the slots.\n\nSo I don\u0027t want to create another process that needs a central authority that accepts things. Instead I would like to trust cores that when they mark something as priority then they also themselves commit to review the patch.\n\nI also think that if a core reviewed a patch then that core should easily find another core as a second reviewer if needed.\n\nI think the raise-attention-to-a-patch-by-the-owner does not need to be automated in gerrit by this new flag. We have already a bunch of ways to raise attention. It can be brought up on IRC, ML, or even on the weekly meeting, and cores can be added to the review by the author. We can keep these as is. \n\nbottom line I propose the following:\n\n* have a 0, +1 flag that can only set by the members of the core team\n* a core set the priority flag to +1 to indicate that he/she help the author to get the patch merged. \n* I expect that the cores will limit the number of patches marked with +1 based on their review bandwidth\n* I expect that cores will check the list of reviews having +1 by other cores before they mark a new one to see where they can help first by being the second core for the patch. (Note two cores can independently vote +1)\n* I will add an agenda point to the weekly meeting where we quickly look at the overall list of patches with +1 mark to keep a horizontal view what is happening in nova.\n\n@Sean: can we configure gerrit that this +1 is not automatically reset when a new revision is pushed?","commit_id":"102aeb475085e3d97d76f72bae5dfa988b90547d"},{"author":{"_account_id":7166,"name":"Sylvain Bauza","email":"sbauza@redhat.com","username":"sbauza"},"change_message_id":"6c7a1d631183c770980855a38bf6502ec2de3943","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1,"context_line":"[access \"refs/heads/*\"]"},{"line_number":2,"context_line":"abandon \u003d group nova-core"},{"line_number":3,"context_line":"label-Code-Review \u003d -2..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"label-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"label-Verified \u003d -1..+1 group nova-ci"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":2,"id":"cbee7529_986fdf11","line":4,"range":{"start_line":4,"start_character":0,"end_line":4,"end_character":46},"in_reply_to":"572b76cc_c06c1468","updated":"2021-05-11 15:54:08.000000000","message":"OK, I see your concern, gibi.\nMy only take is that I wonder how to help the contributors by asking us to look at their changes.\nIf not, I\u0027m not sure we would need to have this new label as we already discuss in between us in the IRC channel for asking to review.","commit_id":"102aeb475085e3d97d76f72bae5dfa988b90547d"},{"author":{"_account_id":9708,"name":"Balazs Gibizer","display_name":"gibi","email":"gibizer@gmail.com","username":"gibi"},"change_message_id":"150f90ac3d4ce98b1c0e36094b29b7ce2595fa14","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1,"context_line":"[access \"refs/heads/*\"]"},{"line_number":2,"context_line":"abandon \u003d group nova-core"},{"line_number":3,"context_line":"label-Code-Review \u003d -2..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"label-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"label-Verified \u003d -1..+1 group nova-ci"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":2,"id":"f51c250e_d0bfdc45","line":4,"range":{"start_line":4,"start_character":0,"end_line":4,"end_character":46},"in_reply_to":"cbee7529_986fdf11","updated":"2021-05-20 11:29:07.000000000","message":"written up my proposal to the contributor doc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/792357","commit_id":"102aeb475085e3d97d76f72bae5dfa988b90547d"},{"author":{"_account_id":7166,"name":"Sylvain Bauza","email":"sbauza@redhat.com","username":"sbauza"},"change_message_id":"5dd4f246c813680bf500177389647751e55fa9a4","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1,"context_line":"[access \"refs/heads/*\"]"},{"line_number":2,"context_line":"abandon \u003d group nova-core"},{"line_number":3,"context_line":"label-Code-Review \u003d -2..+2 group nova-core"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"label-Review-Priority \u003d +0..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"label-Verified \u003d -1..+1 group nova-ci"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group nova-core"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":2,"id":"16cba668_af683cd0","line":4,"range":{"start_line":4,"start_character":0,"end_line":4,"end_character":46},"in_reply_to":"f23fbafc_bc3e4a20","updated":"2021-05-07 09:28:48.000000000","message":"My personal take on the above is that :\n- contributors could propose a change to be prioritised asynchrounsly (maybe be using Gerrit, but at least not by being in a meeting)\n- nova cores should accept a change by voting asynchronously (maybe by Gerrit as well)\n- the result of the votes could be at some deadline (like in a meeting)\n\nA strawman proposal could be :\n- contributors tag on Gerrit their changes by flagging Review-Priority to be +1\n- cores have until next meeting to vote on open changes that are proposed whether they accept them as priority or not by tagging the Review-Priority level to be +2\n- at the meeting, the PTL will look over the number of +2s and if 3 cores voted +2, the PTL does set a new Gerrit label like \"Review Priority Accepted\"\n\nThis way, we would know whose cores expressed interest in reviewing such change, actually being honest about saying \"OK, I take the point that I\u0027d like to review this change\"","commit_id":"102aeb475085e3d97d76f72bae5dfa988b90547d"},{"author":{"_account_id":9708,"name":"Balazs Gibizer","display_name":"gibi","email":"gibizer@gmail.com","username":"gibi"},"change_message_id":"aa652150564bb7298398bef8d5a5492f3005630e","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"[label \"Review-Priority\"]"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"copyAllScoresIfNoCodeChange \u003d true"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"copyAllScoresOnTrivialRebase \u003d true"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"copyAnyScore \u003d true"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"copyMaxScore \u003d true"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"copyMinScore \u003d true"},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"defaultValue \u003d 0"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"function \u003d AnyWithBlock"},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"value \u003d 0 Default Priority"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":5,"id":"936ccbbc_a8cf93c5","line":29,"range":{"start_line":27,"start_character":0,"end_line":29,"end_character":19},"updated":"2021-08-23 13:29:41.000000000","message":"based on my understanding copyAnyScore is enough as min/max is subset of any","commit_id":"6e6b43b860c8b73a7331bda1c4e4651fa510f7fa"},{"author":{"_account_id":9708,"name":"Balazs Gibizer","display_name":"gibi","email":"gibizer@gmail.com","username":"gibi"},"change_message_id":"aa652150564bb7298398bef8d5a5492f3005630e","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":28,"context_line":"copyMaxScore \u003d true"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"copyMinScore \u003d true"},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"defaultValue \u003d 0"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"function \u003d AnyWithBlock"},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"value \u003d 0 Default Priority"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"value \u003d +1 High Priority"},{"line_number":34,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":5,"id":"81bed531_2722f266","line":31,"updated":"2021-08-23 13:29:41.000000000","message":"this seems OK as we have no negative value for this flag, but I think NoBlock/NoOp would communicate our intentions better.","commit_id":"6e6b43b860c8b73a7331bda1c4e4651fa510f7fa"},{"author":{"_account_id":4146,"name":"Clark Boylan","email":"cboylan@sapwetik.org","username":"cboylan"},"change_message_id":"2797386563e7033df4fcf71ffd1a236c8b20a8c5","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":22,"context_line":"label-Workflow \u003d -1..+1 group stable-maint-core"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"[label \"Review-Priority\"]"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"copyAllScoresIfNoCodeChange \u003d true"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"copyAllScoresOnTrivialRebase \u003d true"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"copyAnyScore \u003d true"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"defaultValue \u003d 0"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"function \u003d NoOp"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":6,"id":"c7d7670e_efbd5d54","line":26,"range":{"start_line":25,"start_character":0,"end_line":26,"end_character":35},"updated":"2021-08-27 15:15:02.000000000","message":"These two options should not be necessary with copyAnyScore below. To prevent future cargo culting of unnecessary options can we clean this up?","commit_id":"1e8e9d9719b2b4e89401a295ff5473d78ece68f3"},{"author":{"_account_id":5263,"name":"Jeremy Stanley","display_name":"fungi","email":"fungi@yuggoth.org","username":"fungi","status":"missing, presumed fed"},"change_message_id":"3d91017321e96c08bef0a2c866c3c2fa93116618","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"[label \"Review-Priority\"]"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"copyAllScoresIfNoCodeChange \u003d true"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"copyAllScoresOnTrivialRebase \u003d true"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"copyAnyScore \u003d true"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"defaultValue \u003d 0"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"function \u003d NoOp"},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"value \u003d 0 Default Priority"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":6,"id":"05f5c931_7b445755","line":27,"updated":"2021-08-27 12:29:00.000000000","message":"Note that other projects seem to be using a combination of copyMinScore and copyMaxScore, which I think will be functionally equivalent when you consider the vote range/values used. I don\u0027t object, though other reviewers may be concerned about maintaining consistency of Review-Priority label definitions. This would also be the first use of copyAnyScore in our ACLs, based on the need to edit the allowed options list in the linter.","commit_id":"1e8e9d9719b2b4e89401a295ff5473d78ece68f3"},{"author":{"_account_id":4146,"name":"Clark Boylan","email":"cboylan@sapwetik.org","username":"cboylan"},"change_message_id":"2797386563e7033df4fcf71ffd1a236c8b20a8c5","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"[label \"Review-Priority\"]"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"copyAllScoresIfNoCodeChange \u003d true"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"copyAllScoresOnTrivialRebase \u003d true"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"copyAnyScore \u003d true"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"defaultValue \u003d 0"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"function \u003d NoOp"},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"value \u003d 0 Default Priority"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-ini","patch_set":6,"id":"42c2a046_a7d919c4","line":27,"in_reply_to":"05f5c931_7b445755","updated":"2021-08-27 15:15:02.000000000","message":"I believe copyAnyScore is a new gerrit feature and other uses are done different as they predate our upgrade.","commit_id":"1e8e9d9719b2b4e89401a295ff5473d78ece68f3"}]}