> > On Sep 21, 12:11 pm, Chris Clark <chris.cl...@ingres.com> wrote:
>
> >> It looks like p4 is claiming there is a perforce repo in the svn
> >> location. A quick "hack"/test would be to modify postreview to check svn
> >> first. I.e. hack the SCMCLIENTS def.
>
Let's assume this suggestion actually works since it looks like the
script first tries hg, then p4, probably then svn.  It seems there
needs to be a way to explicitly indicate which scm provider to use,
rather than do it implicitly since it's conceivable they could all
work for a given directory.   Take for instance the following
structure:

c:/dev   - this is the root for the perforce clientspec
c:/dev/myproject/vers1 - this is a perforce version of the project
called out in the clientspec
c:/dev/myproject/vers2 - this is the root for an svn repository for
the project

I could see how perforce might be picked up for myproject/vers2 even
though it isn't specified in the perforce clientspec.  If there was a
way to explicitly declare the repo type, then this wouldn't be an
issue.

...Jay

-- 
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at 
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en

Reply via email to