Thanks! I actually used revision range and it worked out well. It
thinks it's a new file which is exactly what I wanted. I suspect that
sometimes I will want to see the diff, but its nice to have the
flexibility to do both.

Thanks for the feedback!

On Oct 16, 1:22 pm, "Jeff Andros" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It just hit me too, that you can just click the "expand changes" link in the
> diff viewer header, there's nothing stopping you from reviewing parts that
> didn't change, we do it all the time... just make sure to hit that link,
> otherwise the comments that are in old sections won't be displayed
> --Christian or Dave--
> as an enhancement, how hard would it be to set "auto expand" as either a
> user or global setting?
> Jeff
> O|||||||O
> Help me and the Leukemia and Lymphoma society fight blood 
> cancers:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Andros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are two ways to do this:
> > 1. if you manually diff your current file against a file that doesn't exist
> > (there may be a flag you need to set on your diff program), it will generate
> > a diff against a new file, then you just need to adjust the diff header to
> > make it right... we've got a simple script that does this for our perforce
> > repo
> > 2. I haven't tried it, but there's a revision range argument on
> > post-review.  Last I knew, this doesn't work for all SCM's, but it should
> > eventually.  just supply a revision number like 0.  (this has been suggested
> > before I think)
> > HTH
> > Jeff
> > O|||||||O
> > Help me and the Leukemia and Lymphoma society fight blood cancers:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:59 AM, fts1050 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >> In the diff viewer, for new files, only one version of the file is
> >> show (because only 1 exists). I would like our code reviews to be more
> >> about reviewing a file in a given state, not simply a diff. Is there
> >> anyway to create your diff so that the diff viewer will only show a
> >> single version of the file, as specified by the diff file? This would
> >> avoid the side by side of the same file, which I am sure is extremely
> >> useful, but for how we work, is something we'd like to be able to
> >> bypass if we could.
> >> By the way, this is ideal for reviewers who are looking at the code
> >> for the first time, who need to review the entire file, not just the
> >> diff from version X to Y.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to