)]}'
{"swift/obj/expirer.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":1179,"name":"Clay Gerrard","email":"clay.gerrard@gmail.com","username":"clay-gerrard"},"change_message_id":"925784330e3530580c5e08a5227ba3e4a23d187f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":114,"context_line":"                break"},{"line_number":115,"context_line":""},{"line_number":116,"context_line":"            if self.processes \u003e 0 and shard % self.processes !\u003d self.process:"},{"line_number":117,"context_line":"                continue"},{"line_number":118,"context_line":""},{"line_number":119,"context_line":"            all_containers.add(container)"},{"line_number":120,"context_line":"            end_marker \u003d normalize_delete_at_timestamp(time() + 1)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"ba5da102_375f840f","line":117,"updated":"2016-10-31 23:55:48.000000000","message":"it\u0027s not super obvious to me that this is backwards compatible with the old load scheme.\n\ni mean I guess every timestamp will have be assigned a shard and every shard will be assigned a process maybe that\u0027s good enough.","commit_id":"2c9f20e87b677ef22832b46302ca9fa32ec4e42c"}]}