Hash: SHA1

Christian Hammond wrote:
> Hmm, well, somehow, that review request has a date of "743-28-27", which
> is quite clearly invalid no matter which way you look at it. Which is
> the year? Which is the month? None of those are valid months or years.
> The time is also invalid. Question is, how did this happen? The date
> seems to be our "last_activity_timestamp," which should be either the
> review request's last_updated timestamp or the most recent review's
> timestamp. So I don't know how this would happen. Was this a brand new
> upgrade, or was this working for a while before now?

Brand new install.  I just handed it over to a developer who started
testing by adding some reviews.  After he added one or two reviews I got
the 500 error.

> I'm working to fully rewrite the last_activity_timestamp generation,
> which should definitely fix this. I hope to get it into a nightly
> release in the next couple of days, followed by RC3.

Thanks!  I presume upgrades are easy?


James Turnbull
- --
Author of:
* Pro Linux Systems Administration
* Pulling Strings with Puppet
* Pro Nagios 2.0
* Hardening Linux

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to