Update patch set 3

Patch Set 3:

(1 comment)

Patch-set: 3
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 13807 \u003c13807@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_34567\u003e replied on the change"}
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 34567 \u003c34567@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"REMOVE","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_34567\u003e replied on the change"}

f7c6e4f43d590e52f6b91a0b2e76c60a77c74287

@@ -16,6 +16,24 @@
       "message": "Does this mean we will be dropping support for single non-parsed entries like \"job\", \"view\", etc.... if we merge the feature later in this change chain?\n\nIf so, I guess I\u0027m not against that since I think job-template is much more useful than \"job\" and can be used statically if you really want but with extra steps. I\u0027m not sure how many users use single job definitions but I guess we\u0027ll have to do a major version bump once the final change is merged to signal breaking changes.\n\n(Apologies if this is obvious further down the change chain since I don\u0027t have time to go through and fully understand everything in this chain of changes just yet but am trying to slowly look at them.)",
       "revId": "f7c6e4f43d590e52f6b91a0b2e76c60a77c74287",
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": true,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "76c34ff5_b76612d7",
+        "filename": "/COMMIT_MSG",
+        "patchSetId": 3
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 10,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 34567
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2023-01-30T17:45:10Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "No. Change in review up the chain does not remove standalone job and view support. It only changes parser logic which affects duplicate checks. In that change, jobs listed in a projects are just ignored. Because that\u0027s actually is no-op in current implementation - listing jobs in a project does not affect jobs instantiation.\n\nBut I have plans to remove standalone jobs and views in favor of templates. Also I have plans to always expand macros, have they parameters passed to them or not. But these will go in separate reviews, after I create tasks with detailed explanation why that should be done. And after I raise this issue in mail list, with same explanation. And only after that I want to assign new major version.\n\nBy the way, I am glad you are back! It really helps knowing someone with better knowledge reviews my changes.",
+      "parentUuid": "94ece74b_77bbcd5e",
+      "revId": "f7c6e4f43d590e52f6b91a0b2e76c60a77c74287",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
     }
   ]
 }