On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Christian Hammond <[email protected]> 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 - [email protected] > Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org > VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Jan Koprowski <[email protected]> > 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 >> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > 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 >> > [email protected] >> > 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 >> [email protected] >> 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 [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
