)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":16312,"name":"Alfredo Moralejo","email":"amoralej@redhat.com","username":"amoralej"},"change_message_id":"6e5b353f63ca2b3cad9535e055f938a558f8541a","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"337c5a3c_3e2da1e9","updated":"2026-09-18 08:44:12.000000000","message":"Please, keep this on hold for a while. I will do a change to implement backwards-compatible mechanism in o-k-o.","commit_id":"cf5bb467123aaaa5756ec776eb66b3803ebe00a6"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"9a01ad2959b1eb540105ad76b65952f2f51033fb","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"d9ac8dee_c8d4b784","in_reply_to":"337c5a3c_3e2da1e9","updated":"2026-09-18 12:00:47.000000000","message":"we shoudl not reintoduce the script via the s2i contaienrs repo like you did for the cybrog api.\nwe shoudl just update the wsgi path in the apache config but yes we can wait a bit","commit_id":"cf5bb467123aaaa5756ec776eb66b3803ebe00a6"}],"doc/source/admin/wsgi.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":28006,"name":"teim-ci","display_name":"teim-ci","email":"ci@seanmooney.info","username":"ci-sean-mooney","status":"this is a third-party ci account run by sean-k-mooney on irc\nhosted at zuul.teim.app"},"tag":"autogenerated:zuul:automatic-ci","change_message_id":"ad222afe54140e5479da10144085097301975c6c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":14,"context_line":"    Removed the ``watcher-api-wsgi`` script generated by pbr and the"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"    ``watcher/api/app.wsgi`` script. Deployment tooling should instead"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"    reference the ``watcher.wsgi.api`` Python module path, if the chosen WSGI"},{"line_number":17,"context_line":"    server supports this (gunicorn, uWSGI), or implement a ``.wsgi`` script"},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"    itself if not (mod_wsgi)."},{"line_number":19,"context_line":""},{"line_number":20,"context_line":"The Watcher API is implemented as a generic Python HTTP server that"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"9e8c1157_ca227d6c","line":17,"updated":"2026-09-17 21:13:12.000000000","message":"The versionchanged note added to doc/source/admin/wsgi.rst says deployment tooling should reference the watcher.wsgi.api module path \"if the chosen WSGI server supports this (gunicorn, uWSGI), or implement a ``.wsgi`` script itself if not (mod_wsgi)\". This contradicts the guidance introduced by the same change everywhere else: the next paragraph of the same file says to point servers that need a file on disk at the installed watcher/wsgi/api.py file, doc/source/admin/apache-mod-wsgi.rst was rewritten to point mod_wsgi at the installed module file, etc/apache2/watcher demonstrates WSGIScriptAlias against watcher/wsgi/api.py, and the new release note shows the same WSGIScriptAlias example. A deployer reading only the upgrade note would conclude that writing a custom wrapper .wsgi script is required for mod_wsgi, when the point of the change is that the installed module file can be used directly.\n\n**Severity**: WARNING | **Confidence**: 0.8\n\n**Impact**: Operators upgrading per the release note may write and maintain an unnecessary wrapper .wsgi script for mod_wsgi, or may be confused about which deployment path the project now supports and documents, since the upgrade note names a different remedy than the rest of the changed documentation.\n\n**Suggestion**:\nExtend the versionchanged sentence in doc/source/admin/wsgi.rst to include the file-on-disk option, e.g.: \"...or, for servers that require a file on disk such as Apache mod_wsgi, point them at the installed watcher/wsgi/api.py file or implement a ``.wsgi`` script\" so the note matches the body text, the mod_wsgi admin doc, the example Apache configuration, and the release note.","commit_id":"cf5bb467123aaaa5756ec776eb66b3803ebe00a6"}]}