)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":38496,"name":"Andressa Cabistani","display_name":"Andressa","email":"acabistani@gmail.com","username":"andressadotpy","status":"I\u0027m a Software Engineer at Red Hat and I love Open Source and connect with people! Feel free to DM through IRC, I\u0027ll be delighted to chat"},"change_message_id":"5461198a02da826d642f67198aa6e2f11f258b1e","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":5,"id":"a7ff15af_91977dc0","updated":"2026-07-16 15:33:38.000000000","message":"The patch looks good to me!\n\nI do have one question though that it might be worth it to ask so I can understand better. When the owner thread\u0027s audit raises, the finally block fires evt.set() but nothing is cached. Waiters then return self.list_cache.get(key) → None. Downstream callers do \"if name in container_listing\" or \"if name not in account_listing\", which raises TypeError on None. This differs from the old behaviour which I find better, and the test explicitly asserts [None], so I believe this is intentional. But worth confirming: is the plan for the TypeError to propagate up to the pool\u0027s general exception handler?","commit_id":"33aee76addff3a144228e1ad2b154f8b467d54eb"},{"author":{"_account_id":6968,"name":"Christian Schwede","email":"cschwede@nvidia.com","username":"cschwede"},"change_message_id":"eb1eccf0a98d6d0aeb6795d41d6d66651958091a","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":6,"id":"e84079f8_50a0ea01","updated":"2026-09-14 09:50:19.000000000","message":"Self-approving on feature branch after discussing within the core reviewers team.","commit_id":"80d1208143ea12fda2cf01775c5ba20d92cce64c"}]}