-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30204/#review69473
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Ship It!

- Zameer Manji


On Jan. 22, 2015, 6:11 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30204/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 22, 2015, 6:11 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Kevin Sweeney.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Release notes: https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.7/
> 
> Some potentially-interesting new features:
> 
> 
> ```
> rbt land
> The new rbt land command is a quick and easy way to push a change that has 
> been reviewed on Review Board to the upstream repository. The change may be 
> in a local branch or stored as a patch on Review Board.
> 
> When running against Review Board 2.0+, this command will start by checking 
> the approval state of the review request (on older versions, it just checks 
> for one or more “Ship It!”s). If the change is approved, the patch will be 
> applied just like rbt patch.
> 
> The change can optionally be pushed to the remote repository using the 
> -p/--push command line option.
> 
> This is currently only available when using Git repositories.
> 
> 
> rbt stamp
> The new rbt stamp command will amend a commit message with a “Reviewed at 
> <url>” line.
> 
> This feature is especially useful when using the close-on-submit hooks in 
> Review Board 2.x to close out review requests when the changes are committed.
> 
> This is currently only supported for Git repositories.
> 
> Patch by Yanjia (Nicole) Xin.
> ```
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   rbt 0742cf47924ee013758883878fa229b5b876be27 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30204/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Posted this review.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Farner
> 
>

Reply via email to