On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote:
> 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.

I suspect You will say that and I completely understand this and agree
with Your approach.

> 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.

It is good enought to just "fix" current post-review e.g. allow to
generate reviews from git bare-repositories and then somehow "share"
this common peace of code with reviewboard and rbtools - somehow.

> 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.

If rbtools code will be ported into RB - it is a good approach to
write more patches to rbtools which will be able to work on "bare"
repositories and add more post-review methods for each version-control
system. Then - just add GUI to this functions - that is all.

> 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
>



-- 
><> 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

Reply via email to