Following the discussion here: https://chat.civicrm.org/civicrm/pl/cfon7833xbyxpcjjcpqs1qqqja

Review Standards - Change `r-jira` to `r-explain`

Fix typo strtucure to structure

Update Jenkins Documention to resolve issue #458

hook_civicrm_summaryActions.md - Fix formatting

added spaces so the last code block gets recognised as code

Enable debugging to see tpl's in source

Describe `is_public` and `is_ssl` on the Routing page

framework/setting.md: Fixed Civi::settings() examples.

Update buildkit.md

Added documentation on Michael McAndrews docker container.

dev/translation#2: update ts() example to E::ts().

Document data-params added by CRM-21741

Re-arrange CI doc as per some comments from Tim and link to other docs on test suites rather than replicating

In keeping with the discussions about JIRA, Gitlab, and issue management
(e.g.  https://lab.civicrm.org/infrastructure/ops/issues/817), this change
would revise the "Review Standards".  Instead of specifically requiring
*a JIRA issue* for every PR, it requires *a public explanation* (which can be
provided by JIRA, Gitlab, etc).

Note: This change tries to be the smallest reasonable alteration to the
review criteria that accomodates Gitlab.  However, perhaps we could make it
better -- e.g.  by providing examples of good and bad explanations?

Related: https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

Update hook_civicrm_alterPaymentProcessorParams.md

Update hook_civicrm_buildForm.md