Hey,

I'll be honest, I'm not wild about Review Board's codebase knowing about
post-review at all. It introduces some compatibility concerns and makes it
harder to move forward on either end without breaking the other.

What I'd prefer instead is just expanding upon the capabilities that SCMTool
offers. However, I haven't looked at the code for this feature yet, so I
can't really say how much overlap there'd end up being.

post-review (and RBTools) is going to end up changing to provide an actual
Python API for clients and for talking to RB, and at that point we may want
to look at what can be factored out into some common library. But I don't
want to jump the gun on that yet.

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com


On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Jan Koprowski <jan.koprow...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Philipp,
>
>  Thank  You for fast response. Implementing new class to do the same
> (what rbtools.postreview does) sounds like some part of work can be
> "reused". Guessing (watching screenshot o Your website) You have
> different approach to Subversion post-review requesting but for other
> tools like ClearQuest, Git and I thought also mercurial classes from
> rbtools.postreview are perfect to reuse in most cases.
>  Please, forgive me, but I'm engineer and I always though in terms of
> implementation. So. rbtools could be not also client-side library but
> also server side library (I'm thinking loudly now) ReviewBoard can
> detect it
>
> try:
>  from rbtools import postreview
> expect ImportError:
>  postreview = None
>
> if postreview:
>   # Turn on Philipp's magic stuff
>
> And then only thing which is need is extend existing classes from
> postreview by some additional methods and use existing which can be
> used e.g. will be nice to have method which return all available
> branches available in repository to autocomplete names of this
> branches in reviewboard. But everything else are present already. Your
> Subversion method is probably some kind of implementation of
> --revision-range="" or something similar.
>
> What do You thinking about such postreview implementation in ReviewBoard?
>
> Greetings from Poland!
> --
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Philipp Henkel
> <weltraumpi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > I neither use post-review nor the rbtools. I decided to slightly
> > extend the SCM tool concept and derived a new class from SVNTool. This
> > new SCM tool provides functionality like diff file creation or
> > generation of revisions which are not yet added to Review Board.
> > Web user interfaces are not my core competence. Therefore any Java
> > Script magic is welcome :-)
> > I implemented a "New Review Request" form especially for my post-
> > commit needs. The Upload diff form is the same at the moment.
> >
> > Greetings from Germany,
> > Philipp
> >
> >
> > On Apr 8, 5:33 pm, Jan Koprowski <jan.koprow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Philipp,
> >>
> >>   Are You simply running post-review under the scene or somehow import
> >> Python classes from rbtools and call appropriate method?
> >>   I will also a little bit improve UI leaving "New Review Request" but
> >> modifying it just extending window by some "Java Script" tab likehttp://
> jqueryui.com/demos/tabs/e.g.:
> >>   Upload diff
> >>   Enter revisions
> >>
> >> Greetings from Poland,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Philipp Henkel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <weltraumpi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi Rob,
> >>
> >> > Most probably moving to 1.6 code line is not much effort. At least I
> >> > tried to keep my changes to the main code base small. At the moment
> >> > I'm fully focused on adding more feature and therefore I have not yet
> >> > evaluated 1.6.
> >> > Regarding scmbug: Parsing the svn log is not a big deal and not much
> >> > overhead as all data is already cached. If a regex is used to extract
> >> > bug numbers this is good candidate for an official feature in my
> >> > opinion.
> >>
> >> > Have a nice weekend,
> >> > Philipp
> >>
> >> > --
> >> > Philipp Henkel
> >> > Citrix Online -www.citrixonline.com
> >>
> >> > On Apr 8, 10:22 am, Rob Coward <r...@jive-videos.net> wrote:
> >> >> Hi Philipp,
> >>
> >> >> This looks like a great feature - our dev teams work
> >> >> by checking in code at the end of each day, so being able to do a
> >> >> post-commit review over multiple revisions would be a killer feature
> for
> >> >> us. I'm currently evaluating the 1.6beta1 version - would there be
> much
> >> >> involved in porting your changes up to the 1.6 code base ?
> >>
> >> >> We use
> >> >> scmbug to integrate SVN with bugzilla, so our checkin comments have a
> >> >> consistent format - what would be involved in getting your code to
> use a
> >> >> RE pattern to parse bug numbers out of the revision comments and
> >> >> automatically add them to the review ?
> >>
> >> >> Looking forward to seeing this
> >> >> functionality integrated into the main codebase.
> >>
> >> >> Rob
> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 7 Apr
> >> >> 2011 05:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Hi,
> >>
> >> >> > In order
> >>
> >> >> to simplify the creation of post-commit review requests I> created a
> >>
> >> >> customized version of Review Board 1.5.> I integrated a new request
> >>
> >> >> creation form into the web user interface
> >>
> >> >> > and extended the Subversion
> >> >> SCM tool.
> >>
> >> >> > The creation of a new request is now as simple as
> >> >> follows:
> >> >> > - Select a repository which features post-commit - at the
> >> >> moment
> >> >> > Subversion only
> >> >> > - Hit "Show my pending revisions" to get list
> >> >> of your latest code
> >> >> > changes
> >> >> > - Select one or more of your revisions
> >> >> from the list
> >> >> > - Hit "Create" button to automatically build up the
> >> >> request
> >>
> >> >> > My changes are fully compatible with Review Board 1.5. I
> >> >> did not add
> >> >> > new database tables nor colums. Therefore you can easily
> >> >> install post-
> >> >> > reviewboard over your 1.5 installation.
> >>
> >> >> > The source,
> >>
> >> >> more information and a screenshot is available at
> >>
> >> >>http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard[1]
> >>
> >> >> > Of course, any
> >>
> >> >> feedback is appreciated!
> >>
> >> >> > Best regards,
> >> >> > Philipp
> >>
> >> >> Links:
> >> >> ------
> >> >> [1]http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard
> >>
> >> > --
> >> > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today athttp://
> www.reviewboard.org/donate/
> >> > Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> >> > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> >> > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ><> Jan Koprowski
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> ><> Jan Koprowski
>
> --
> 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
>

-- 
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