)]}'
{"specs/kilo/tripleo-review-standards.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":6488,"name":"Clint Byrum","email":"clint@fewbar.com","username":"clint-fewbar"},"change_message_id":"6f1cc9a43ee0ded826c97ec22391078a6d91ecbd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":13,"context_line":"Like many OpenStack projects, TripleO generally has more changes incoming to"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"the projects than it has core reviewers to review and approve those changes."},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"Because of this, optimizing reviewer bandwidth is important.  This spec will"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"propose some changes to our review process discussed at the Paris OpenStack"},{"line_number":17,"context_line":"Summit and intended to make the best possible use of core reviewer time."},{"line_number":18,"context_line":""},{"line_number":19,"context_line":"There are essentially two major areas that a reviewer looks at when reviewing"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"5a890539_3af8217c","line":16,"updated":"2014-11-11 01:51:59.000000000","message":"I think I\u0027d rather see this referred to as the Kilo OpenStack Summit in Paris. Nit-pick, not -1 material.","commit_id":"860e9bf501fc17fc584382adf651ee15c87221e7"},{"author":{"_account_id":8449,"name":"Marios Andreou","email":"marios.andreou@gmail.com","username":"marios"},"change_message_id":"28eec77647f2217dc0cfaba40281cbf1553f8978","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":48,"context_line":""},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"* A change that has had multiple +2\u0027s on past patch sets, indicating an"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"  agreement from the other reviewers that the overall design of the change"},{"line_number":51,"context_line":"  is good."},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"* Any further alterations to the change since the patch set(s) with +2\u0027s should"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"  be implementation details only - trivial rebases, minor syntax changes, or"},{"line_number":54,"context_line":"  comment/documentation changes.  Any more significant changes invalidate this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"5a890539_b5b5bf32","line":51,"updated":"2014-11-13 08:27:13.000000000","message":"This also implies that we never \u0027single +2A\u0027 a review with less than n revisions; do we need to further discuss/put a number on this? How about if we have lots of +2s on rev 1 and then I see rev2 which is a minor fix, is it ok then?\n\nThe above is mostly rhetorical - just thinking out loud - we can only get so specific here - and as stated below  \u0027use their judgement\u0027.","commit_id":"860e9bf501fc17fc584382adf651ee15c87221e7"},{"author":{"_account_id":9712,"name":"Dougal Matthews","email":"dougal.matthews@canonical.com","username":"dougal"},"change_message_id":"b031749d6054e1d4d9436918634c6118456c8a99","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":115,"context_line":"Work Items"},{"line_number":116,"context_line":"----------"},{"line_number":117,"context_line":""},{"line_number":118,"context_line":"Publish the agreed-upon guidelines somewhere more permanent than a spec."},{"line_number":119,"context_line":""},{"line_number":120,"context_line":""},{"line_number":121,"context_line":"Dependencies"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"5a890539_b08d0d34","line":118,"updated":"2014-11-11 10:34:44.000000000","message":"I hope specs are permanent but somewhere more prominent is certainly a good idea.","commit_id":"860e9bf501fc17fc584382adf651ee15c87221e7"}]}