Glad it's working!
Thanks for the feedback. The design was modeled after GitHub's support,
which was the initial service the current repository form code was built
for. I know that it's not perfect, but it's consistent, and right now we're
going to stay with it, as I want to minimize work being done in this area
The plan after 2.0 ships is to completely redo repository configuration.
You won't fill in these fields anymore. Instead, you'll authenticate with
GitLab (or GitHub or Beanstalk or whatever) and it'll present you with all
repositories associated with your account, and allow you to search and add
other repositories. You'll be able to add as few or as many as you want in
one go. No dealing with plans or a bunch of fields.
Until that's done, I don't want to risk any big regressions in
configuration, or deal with migration of hosting service account data
(which there's currently no support for).
Hope that makes sense, but I do appreciate your willingness to look into
One thing that caught my eye is that you mentioned "Repository Name
(without .git)." Did you have to put ".git" in your repository name? My
tests didn't require that.
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Javins, Walt <walt.jav...@isilon.com>wrote:
> First off, thanks so much for the native GitLab support Christian! I
> just upgraded our staging server to 1.7.21, and it certainly made GitLab
> set up a lot easier.
> One piece of feedback:
> If an admin wishes to set up RB for a repository not owned by the RB
> service user (the account that review board is using to access GitLab), it
> has to be done via the “Repository Plan: Group” option. E.g. if individual
> contributor ‘wjavins’ owns project ‘reviewbot’ , I’d set up review by
> putting ‘wjavins’ in the “GitLab group name:” field and ‘reviewbot’ in the
> “Repository Name” field. Given this somewhat unintuitive setup I propose
> the following changes to simplify Review Board + GitLab configuration:
> * Ditch the distinction between “Group” and “Personal”
> * Always require two fields for GitLab’s “Repository Information:
> 1) “Repository Owner:”
> 2) “Repository Name (without .git):”
> I believe this would simplify the process of setting up accounts by
> removing the choice between ‘group’ and ‘personal’ and unifying setup for 3
> different scenarios:
> 1) accounts owned by the RB service account (just put the RB service
> account name in “Repository Owner:”)
> 2) those owned by other individuals
> 3) and those owned by a group
> If you like this idea, I could likely throw a patch together for it. I’m
> not yet familiar with django/RB’s testing architecture though, so I may
> need help there, if I need to add/update tests.
> Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.