Yep, sounds good to me.
I'm out of town and am not as available as I normally am, so it might still
be a few days before I start reviewing code, but the proposal is good.
I have some further thoughts for making post-review more extensible, but I'd
need the time to do it properly. What I'd like to do is create an rbtools
namespace that post-review and other future scripts would use. It would
contain the SCMClients and would be done in such a way where we could plug
into the extensibility support Python setuptools gives us, where other
packages could register "entry points" for things. We'd support our built-in
SCMClients and then load any provided by an entry point, meaning that adding
third-party support for some repository is as simple as writing an
installable Python module. Of course, we'd still want people to contribute
to RBTools directly.
I also would like an rbapi (or something) package for all the server
communication code. This would be separate from RBTools, but RBTools would
use it. post-review would be greatly simplified by these two changes.
I'd like to take all this a step further and provide a good way of
specifying defaults for post-review without modifying anything. There are a
few options for this:
1) User/system configuration files containing defaults. We'd need a good way
of determining the path for the system config file, as it may vary (may want
to keep it on network storage, for instance). Could even check the directory
post-review is in.
2) Look for an optional rbtools_config.py in the PYTHON_PATH. This could be
installed on the local user's system, or on a network share somewhere.
RBTools wouldn't care, so long as PYTHON_PATH is set to wherever it is.
3) Both. Why not.
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.review-board.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Chris Clark <chris.cl...@ingres.com> wrote:
> Ritesh Nadhani wrote:
> > For one, I would be interested. We use Bazaar and and have been slowly
> > trying to intergrate ReviewBoard in our system. I looked into the
> > post-review and it does not seem to support Bazaar. I have already
> > extended it using the Mercurial example and override two or three
> > methods that the Mercurial component did.
> > I plan to soon post my changes for Bazaar once I can verify that my
> > code actually works :)
> Thanks for the feedback. I've not heard any "nays" so I'm guessing no
> one hates the idea :-)
> I went ahead and created:
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