We would love this too, and we're hoping to get some student proposals from
Summer of Code that would begin adding better integration on Windows (namely
in IDEs, but some of this would likely require better hooks for post-review
David Trowbridge and myself (the main developers on the project) are pretty
much Linux guys and are quite busy as it is with Review Board and work, so
we heavily rely on outside contributions. A graphical application wrapping
post-review would be great, but someone else would likely have to write it.
It's possible that now, with post-review existing inside the rbtools
package, we could add a flag for graphical output that would, using some
standard toolkit, notify people of errors or successes, and then when
installed on Windows it would register entries for hooking post-review up to
the context menu. It probably wouldn't be a ton of work. The advantage of
this is that it keeps the code in the same place, and it's possible to
generate setup.exe files for a Python package.
If you could file a feature request for this, it will help us track it.
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.review-board.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:34 AM, David Allouche <david.allou...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Something which appears frequently here is "you should really be using
> post-review". At the moment, this is a bad answer, because there is no
> usable Windows GUI that does post-review.
> First, let me give you some of my background. I am
> Linux-Emacs-Python-Bazaar kind of programmer. I worked for several
> years as a programmer on http://launchpad.net/, and before that I
> worked on http://texmacs.org/. For the last year I have been working
> in an investment bank, in a team where the standard development
> environment is Windows-Visual-C++-TortoiseSVN. Note that I say
> TortoiseSVN: most of folks involved in writing code are actually
> mathematicians, they do not consider themselves as programmers
> (they're wrong), but getting them to use command-line Subversion is
> out of the question. First because command.com sucks, but also because
> they are just not interested in this kind of arcana.
> Now, I introduced ReviewBoard there because doing code reviews by
> mailing around unified diffs, as I used to do it on Launchpad, was
> just unnecessary distracting pain to my Windows-using collaborators.
> In this context, they easiest and least distracting way I found for
> them submit reviews was to show them the specific recipe required for
> TortoiseSVN to generate diffs that contain paths that reviewboard can
> process (the naive approach produces a diff with absolute filesystem
> paths, gah!).
> I would love to be able to tell them: Here's a setup.exe, after you
> install it, you will have new contextual menu entry in explorer that
> allows up to submit a new review or upload a new diff to an existing
> review. But until there is something close to that, they will still
> use TortoiseSVN to generate a diff.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at