)]}'
{"doc/source/devref/policies.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":5511,"name":"Nikola Dipanov","email":"ndipanov@redhat.com","username":"ndipanov"},"change_message_id":"02d1cb165fd338bfc0d8b47b5d11dfb2a20cdac8","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":51,"context_line":"In `past discussions`_, concerns were raised that our simple \"2 +2s\""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"policy opened the door for bad-faith behavior where core team members"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"could collaborate to have a change merged quickly in spite of known"},{"line_number":54,"context_line":"objections from other core team members."},{"line_number":55,"context_line":""},{"line_number":56,"context_line":"Rather than an enforced time-based solution - for example, a patch"},{"line_number":57,"context_line":"could\u0027t be merged until it has been up for review for 3 days - we have"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"7ac7a964_e1143ff7","line":54,"updated":"2014-08-14 11:01:51.000000000","message":"Personally, I would like to see a reference to a simple error/overlooked patch here as well - this should not be only for malicious behaviour.","commit_id":"1b496c584ce3f2958499b824fa184c5b90a9ff3f"},{"author":{"_account_id":2271,"name":"Michael Still","email":"mikal@stillhq.com","username":"mikalstill"},"change_message_id":"2f32c0d8dd96143b1df688e7e71bfdad772b0137","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":51,"context_line":"In `past discussions`_, concerns were raised that our simple \"2 +2s\""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"policy opened the door for bad-faith behavior where core team members"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"could collaborate to have a change merged quickly in spite of known"},{"line_number":54,"context_line":"objections from other core team members."},{"line_number":55,"context_line":""},{"line_number":56,"context_line":"Rather than an enforced time-based solution - for example, a patch"},{"line_number":57,"context_line":"could\u0027t be merged until it has been up for review for 3 days - we have"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"1abeadc6_e61275b3","line":54,"in_reply_to":"7ac7a964_8358e857","updated":"2014-08-19 03:38:54.000000000","message":"Done.","commit_id":"1b496c584ce3f2958499b824fa184c5b90a9ff3f"},{"author":{"_account_id":7,"name":"Jay Pipes","email":"jaypipes@gmail.com","username":"jaypipes"},"change_message_id":"986daf045769fdff216008a85b83f827476f23c0","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":51,"context_line":"In `past discussions`_, concerns were raised that our simple \"2 +2s\""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"policy opened the door for bad-faith behavior where core team members"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"could collaborate to have a change merged quickly in spite of known"},{"line_number":54,"context_line":"objections from other core team members."},{"line_number":55,"context_line":""},{"line_number":56,"context_line":"Rather than an enforced time-based solution - for example, a patch"},{"line_number":57,"context_line":"could\u0027t be merged until it has been up for review for 3 days - we have"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"7ac7a964_8358e857","line":54,"in_reply_to":"7ac7a964_e1143ff7","updated":"2014-08-14 14:22:51.000000000","message":"++ agreed. I don\u0027t think we need to go down the mal-intent route.","commit_id":"1b496c584ce3f2958499b824fa184c5b90a9ff3f"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"8b11d19e17f4d2226a6e0312ff7f7d3b10e5baab","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":54,"context_line":"objections from other core team members."},{"line_number":55,"context_line":""},{"line_number":56,"context_line":"Rather than an enforced time-based solution - for example, a patch"},{"line_number":57,"context_line":"could\u0027t be merged until it has been up for review for 3 days - we have"},{"line_number":58,"context_line":"chosen an honor-based system where core reviewers would not approve"},{"line_number":59,"context_line":"potentially contentious patches until the proposal had been"},{"line_number":60,"context_line":"sufficiently socialized and everyone had a chance to raise any"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"7ac7a964_6093c2a3","line":57,"updated":"2014-08-14 13:50:11.000000000","message":"\"couldn\u0027t\" is misspelled.","commit_id":"1b496c584ce3f2958499b824fa184c5b90a9ff3f"},{"author":{"_account_id":2271,"name":"Michael Still","email":"mikal@stillhq.com","username":"mikalstill"},"change_message_id":"2f32c0d8dd96143b1df688e7e71bfdad772b0137","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":54,"context_line":"objections from other core team members."},{"line_number":55,"context_line":""},{"line_number":56,"context_line":"Rather than an enforced time-based solution - for example, a patch"},{"line_number":57,"context_line":"could\u0027t be merged until it has been up for review for 3 days - we have"},{"line_number":58,"context_line":"chosen an honor-based system where core reviewers would not approve"},{"line_number":59,"context_line":"potentially contentious patches until the proposal had been"},{"line_number":60,"context_line":"sufficiently socialized and everyone had a chance to raise any"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"1abeadc6_260d4d91","line":57,"in_reply_to":"7ac7a964_6093c2a3","updated":"2014-08-19 03:38:54.000000000","message":"Done.","commit_id":"1b496c584ce3f2958499b824fa184c5b90a9ff3f"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"8b11d19e17f4d2226a6e0312ff7f7d3b10e5baab","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":71,"context_line":"   addressing."},{"line_number":72,"context_line":"2. Any subsequent patches depending on the to-be-reverted patch may"},{"line_number":73,"context_line":"   need to be reverted also."},{"line_number":74,"context_line":"3. Assuming the concerns aren\u0027t completely spurious, other core team"},{"line_number":75,"context_line":"   members should quickly approve the revert. No detailed debate"},{"line_number":76,"context_line":"   should be needed at this point."},{"line_number":77,"context_line":"4. The original patch submitter should re-submit the change, with a"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"7ac7a964_00acce9f","line":74,"updated":"2014-08-14 13:50:11.000000000","message":"I didn\u0027t comment on the POC of this, but reading it here again, I wonder if it might be best to retool this just a bit. The core team is a self-electing body based on trust. I think that we should be able to trust that any core that proposes a revert is not doing so for \"completely spurious\" reasons.","commit_id":"1b496c584ce3f2958499b824fa184c5b90a9ff3f"},{"author":{"_account_id":2271,"name":"Michael Still","email":"mikal@stillhq.com","username":"mikalstill"},"change_message_id":"2f32c0d8dd96143b1df688e7e71bfdad772b0137","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":71,"context_line":"   addressing."},{"line_number":72,"context_line":"2. Any subsequent patches depending on the to-be-reverted patch may"},{"line_number":73,"context_line":"   need to be reverted also."},{"line_number":74,"context_line":"3. Assuming the concerns aren\u0027t completely spurious, other core team"},{"line_number":75,"context_line":"   members should quickly approve the revert. No detailed debate"},{"line_number":76,"context_line":"   should be needed at this point."},{"line_number":77,"context_line":"4. The original patch submitter should re-submit the change, with a"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"1abeadc6_26846dd3","line":74,"in_reply_to":"7ac7a964_00acce9f","updated":"2014-08-19 03:38:54.000000000","message":"I\u0027ve given this a try, but would appreciate your thoughts.","commit_id":"1b496c584ce3f2958499b824fa184c5b90a9ff3f"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"6a693726e83ece2a1439067e84a047089a330328","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":78,"context_line":"   reference to the original patch and the revert."},{"line_number":79,"context_line":"5. The original reviewers of the patch should restore their votes and"},{"line_number":80,"context_line":"   attempt to summarize their previous reasons for their votes."},{"line_number":81,"context_line":"6. The patch should not be re-approved until the reverters concerns"},{"line_number":82,"context_line":"   are worked through. A mailing list discussion or design spec might"},{"line_number":83,"context_line":"   be the best way to achieve this."},{"line_number":84,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"7ac7a964_9e810892","line":81,"updated":"2014-08-15 02:30:55.000000000","message":"nit: reverters -\u003e reverter\u0027s (or reverters\u0027 if there is more than one person that objects?)","commit_id":"1b496c584ce3f2958499b824fa184c5b90a9ff3f"},{"author":{"_account_id":2271,"name":"Michael Still","email":"mikal@stillhq.com","username":"mikalstill"},"change_message_id":"2f32c0d8dd96143b1df688e7e71bfdad772b0137","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":78,"context_line":"   reference to the original patch and the revert."},{"line_number":79,"context_line":"5. The original reviewers of the patch should restore their votes and"},{"line_number":80,"context_line":"   attempt to summarize their previous reasons for their votes."},{"line_number":81,"context_line":"6. The patch should not be re-approved until the reverters concerns"},{"line_number":82,"context_line":"   are worked through. A mailing list discussion or design spec might"},{"line_number":83,"context_line":"   be the best way to achieve this."},{"line_number":84,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"1abeadc6_468969ea","line":81,"in_reply_to":"7ac7a964_9e810892","updated":"2014-08-19 03:38:54.000000000","message":"Done.","commit_id":"1b496c584ce3f2958499b824fa184c5b90a9ff3f"},{"author":{"_account_id":1849,"name":"Joe Gordon","email":"joe.gordon0@gmail.com","username":"jogo"},"change_message_id":"3036c4ff0c5e5f0409d5d20756971dab90c33872","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":63,"context_line":"Recognising that mistakes can happen, we also have a policy where"},{"line_number":64,"context_line":"contentious patches which were quickly approved should be reverted so"},{"line_number":65,"context_line":"that the discussion around the proposal can continue as if the patch"},{"line_number":66,"context_line":"had never been merged in the first place. In such a situation, the"},{"line_number":67,"context_line":"procedure is:"},{"line_number":68,"context_line":""},{"line_number":69,"context_line":"1. The core team member who has a -2 worthy objection should propose a"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1abeadc6_3d40af33","line":66,"updated":"2014-08-20 15:23:58.000000000","message":"Do you think its worth distinguishing between the case where a feature has an approved spec, and for cases that have no specs?\n\nIf a patch is following a spec, then in theory we should of had a significant design discussion. That being said I do expect our spec process to fail us sometimes, but I am not sure if a fast revert is the right approach in this case.","commit_id":"3423f35a7059bdfd613e042b775df95063350411"},{"author":{"_account_id":782,"name":"John Garbutt","email":"john@johngarbutt.com","username":"johngarbutt"},"change_message_id":"2146e3291dc40f4ccc62b3b2a93350f4820b8704","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":63,"context_line":"Recognising that mistakes can happen, we also have a policy where"},{"line_number":64,"context_line":"contentious patches which were quickly approved should be reverted so"},{"line_number":65,"context_line":"that the discussion around the proposal can continue as if the patch"},{"line_number":66,"context_line":"had never been merged in the first place. In such a situation, the"},{"line_number":67,"context_line":"procedure is:"},{"line_number":68,"context_line":""},{"line_number":69,"context_line":"1. The core team member who has a -2 worthy objection should propose a"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1abeadc6_0c0d8637","line":66,"in_reply_to":"1abeadc6_3d40af33","updated":"2014-08-20 16:04:27.000000000","message":"You know, it kinda like not pulling it out into different types of patches. A few quick +2s and a +A, we should still allow the -2, I think.","commit_id":"3423f35a7059bdfd613e042b775df95063350411"},{"author":{"_account_id":1247,"name":"Mark McLoughlin","email":"markmc@redhat.com","username":"markmc"},"change_message_id":"f2b1778701a88db2c884e4ac99a394cb2e693db1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":83,"context_line":"   proposing the revert are worked through. A mailing list discussion or"},{"line_number":84,"context_line":"   design spec might be the best way to achieve this."},{"line_number":85,"context_line":""},{"line_number":86,"context_line":".. _`past discussions`: https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg08574.html"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1abeadc6_df3d9c90","line":86,"updated":"2014-08-22 14:54:49.000000000","message":"This link isn\u0027t used now, but I think it\u0027s worth keeping so that people interested in the background of this can delve deeper","commit_id":"3423f35a7059bdfd613e042b775df95063350411"}]}