Actually, now that I've moved both Review Board and Trac onto our
development server, it's no longer an issue. The repositories are all local
to the same system running everything else, so no problems ... though I do
have one lingering issue that I'll address in a separate thread.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com>wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> So, I'm not a Mercurial person (though many people on the list are and can
> I'm sure give you some better insight into this), but in general, you should
> be able to point Review Board at any repository and not worry about how
> another's repository is set up these days.
> When a user runs post-review (or hg post-review, which is a third party
> thing that many people use, but I know nothing about), it will try to
> compare the repository path with what's on the server. So historically, that
> had to be the same. Nowadays, though, you can use the repository name and
> not the path for comparison (by setting "REPOSITORY = '<name>'" in
> .reviewboardrc). I don't know if hg post-review supports this yet.
> At that point, so long as the client can find the repository on the server,
> it'll just be uploading a diff that is then applied onto files checked out
> from the repository Review Board knows about.
> Now, that repository should always be pristine and up-to-date, or Review
> Board may hit problems finding the files and applying the patches. I'd
> recommend having a dedicated checkout.
> Do you have a central Mercurial repository that everything gets pushed to?
> Ideally, that should be used.
> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Eric Mann <e...@eam.me> wrote:
>> OK, now that I have Review Board set up and running, I'm a happy
>> camper. But I have a workflow question.
>> We host all of our development repositories on a local server
>> ("devserver") and map the repositories to local drives to make live
>> with TortoiseHg a bit easier ("R:\" => "\\devserver\Repositories").
>> Then we clone those repositories locally do do our regular development
>> and push when needed ("R:\Mercurial\project-name" is cloned into "E:
>> I've noticed while setting things up, that Review Board doesn't like
>> to look at my R:\ drive or at \\devserver, but it talks to "E:
>> \Projects" just fine. My concern is that "E:\Projects" is just how
>> *my* system is set up (and the other systems we have here), but I
>> cannot guarantee that other developers we bring on board will be able
>> to put everything in E:\Projects.
>> Is there a way to make Review Board recognize the *remote* repository
>> (on the development server) rather than referencing my local clone?
>> Looking through the documentation, there are great descriptions for
>> working with Git, but nothing for Mercurial. Based on the Git
>> instructions, is it safe to assume that Path should point to my local
>> clone (E:\Projects\project-name) and Mirror Path should point to the
>> remote (\\devserver\Repositories\Mercurial\project-name)? If so, what
>> effect will this have on developers who don't have or aren't using an
>> E drive?
>> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
>> Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> For more options, visit this group at
> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
> Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at