)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":31245,"name":"Daniel Bengtsson","email":"dbengt@redhat.com","username":"damani42"},"change_message_id":"38c0bdcded99ad985278d8b1f8070fc43d3c9f8b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"103499a5_9b23d0f2","updated":"2022-08-23 17:35:23.000000000","message":"I agree with Elod, I have started to wrote the same comment but he was faster than me.","commit_id":"a1ba62fc6a8ec87083110a801a1372e10aa70d27"},{"author":{"_account_id":17685,"name":"Elod Illes","email":"elod.illes@est.tech","username":"elod.illes"},"change_message_id":"093ab7405767e8268746229f0026b6e9dd8304de","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"6cceb051_ae6b6a69","updated":"2022-08-23 17:06:18.000000000","message":"I see that this patch modifies the code in order to make it work with SQLAlchemy 1.4 version in stable/wallaby. For the record, in stable/wallaby the upper constraint of SQLAlchemy is 1.3.23 [1]. My question is: are these backports backward compatible? so that they work with SQLAlchemy 1.3.23? If not, then we should not release this. (In fact, the patches should be reverted as in that case they are against stable policy). Giving -1 for now, to highlight my question.\n\n\n[1] https://opendev.org/openstack/requirements/src/commit/fa7c262ee118ffcee36df68a518b18b094ec207d/upper-constraints.txt#L152","commit_id":"a1ba62fc6a8ec87083110a801a1372e10aa70d27"},{"author":{"_account_id":17685,"name":"Elod Illes","email":"elod.illes@est.tech","username":"elod.illes"},"change_message_id":"f53e42bfddb11d7a9f134a0b37475707c9ca128f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"8224ee6e_c828fc53","in_reply_to":"09ca3f42_ea2c208f","updated":"2022-08-24 11:15:31.000000000","message":"If that is compatible, then I\u0027m OK with it. (Note, that this kind of patches are more like downstream fixes and not the best for stable branches, as CentOS 9 was not amongst the supported distros [1] at release time, and for stable branches mostly bugfix backports can be merged, and this is clearly not a bug fix. Though I understand that RH needs this for CentOS 9 Stream...)\n\n[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/runtimes/wallaby.html","commit_id":"a1ba62fc6a8ec87083110a801a1372e10aa70d27"},{"author":{"_account_id":13861,"name":"yatin","email":"ykarel@redhat.com","username":"yatinkarel"},"change_message_id":"d0b476124afc3925d7d25a75148ae82b810406ea","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"09ca3f42_ea2c208f","in_reply_to":"6cceb051_ae6b6a69","updated":"2022-08-24 06:37:46.000000000","message":"@Elod, @Daniel yes that\u0027s a compatibility patch to get stable/wallaby work with sqlalchemy 1.4(the one shipped with CentOS 9-Stream). The patch works fine with both sqlalchemy 1.3 and 1.4. There are comments confirming backward compatibility in patch itself https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.db/+/852097.","commit_id":"a1ba62fc6a8ec87083110a801a1372e10aa70d27"}]}