easy_install by default won't upgrade a package. That's why it's still on
the 20081207 package, instead of last night's nightly. You'll need to use
the --upgrade flag. The Getting Started guide has some instructions for
what's needed for package and site upgrades, but in short, make sure you do:
easy_install --upgrade ReviewBoard Djblets
Then do the site upgrades as described in the guide, and restart memcached.
That should fix the problem.
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Julius Malkiewicz
> And, another observation I can throw into the mix: if the 'set
> submitted' is on, the diff cannot be loaded - regardless of
> I'd be happy to upgrade to a newer version - but according to
> 'easy_install ReviewBoard':
> Searching for ReviewBoard
> Best match: ReviewBoard 0.9.dev-20081207
> Processing ReviewBoard-0.9.dev_20081207-py2.5.egg
> ReviewBoard 0.9.dev-20081207 is already the active version in easy-
> Installing rb-site script to /usr/bin
> Using /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/ReviewBoard-0.9.dev_20081207-
> Processing dependencies for ReviewBoard
> So - without going 'bleeding edge', I'm not sure what version to
> upgrade to. How "bad" are the nightly builds (as per
> http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/wiki/GettingStarted, Bleeding
> Edge Releases)? Is that what I should do? What are the risks with
> "downgrading"? I'm assuming the database upgrade does not downgrade
> terribly well :(.
> Many thanks,
> On Jan 12, 4:46 pm, Julius Malkiewicz <jpmalkiew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> > Thanks for the reply. I've actually attempted to do this before -
> > with no luck. What I have noticed that the diff fragments become
> > available to the review submitters, but not to the reviewers - so it
> > almost sounds like a permissions issue. I've hunted around in the
> > admin interface, but cannot find anything that seems to relate. Does
> > this shed any further light?
> > Julius.
> > On Jan 12, 4:36 pm, "Christian Hammond" <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Julius.
> > > It sounds like you're using a version containing broken progressive
> > > loading code. This was a bug for a short time and we since fixed it.
> > > recommend upgrading your install (which, now that you're using the new
> > > install procedure, should be pretty easy and quick). Make sure to
> > > your memcached server or you may have some diff rendering issues.
> > > I don't know what broke ActiveDirectory support, but if you enable
> > > you might be able to see some additional info. I don't know enough
> > > ActiveDirectory to really say what we need to do to fix it. Maybe
> > > can figure it out and send us a patch?
> > > Christian
> > > --
> > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > > VMware, Inc.
> > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Julius Malkiewicz
> > > <jpmalkiew...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > I've been using review board for over a year - and I've been very
> > > > impressed. I recently upgraded using the new install procedure
> > > > ReviewBoard-0.9.dev_20081207), and a few things seem broken.
> > > > The first (and most important) is that we get the "loading diff
> > > > fragment" on my reviews, but they never turn into diff fragments (no
> > > > matter how long we wait). I'm assuming the issue is either
> > > > installation (as I've seen no one else complain of this issue) or how
> > > > I upgraded from the previous release (early 2008) to this one (late
> > > > 2008).
> > > > The other significant change from the previous setup is that we're
> > > > using a memcached server. I'm not sure if this makes any difference.
> > > > We're running a GNU/Linux distribution ( Ubuntu-Server 7.04 _Feisty
> > > > Fawn_ - Release), and I'm very familiar with linux.
> > > > I'm not familiar with django/json/etc (I'm a software engineer which
> > > > deals with "C" and embedded devices :)). Any pointers in how I can
> > > > diagnose (and/or solve) the issue? I'd also be happy with not
> > > > "caching" the diff loading, but wait for the diff to load (ie,
> > > > previous behavior).
> > > > The other issues are "annoying" - we were previously able to
> > > > authenticate against our ActiveDirectory LDAP, but that is no longer
> > > > the case - I'd be curious to hear of success stories in that regard.
> > > > Apologies in advance if any of these issues have been previously
> > > > and solved, but extensive searching has not yeilded any answers.
> > > > Many thanks,
> > > > Julius.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at