Re: ReviewBoard Integration with GIT

[Kunjal]

One more thing...
The post-review script we have has the class called PerforceClient
which gets the repository info. and creates diff.
I do not see any class for GITClient.
Do I need to create such class on my own?

Thanks
Kunjal


On Jan 23, 11:10 am, Kunjal kunjal.par...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello Chris,

 We do have RB-Perforce integration working perfect!
 We want RB-GIT integration as well.

 Here are the steps I can think of. Can you evaluate it?

 1. Add new repository for GIT in RB.
 2. Install RB tools in Linux machines. We do have our own version of
 post-review. can we just replace it?
 3. what are the commands to be used to post review? For perforce, we
 are using post-review.exe 234545
 For GIT, I have to give latest commit number? post-review 0er545455 ?
 4. Any other things I need to take care.

 Thanks for your help.

 Kunjal

-- 
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

Re: post-review with bypass proxy settings in Internet Explorer

[Chris Bayley]

You may be interested to see what I did with the mercurial-reviewboard
postreview extension solving this exact issue.
You can find the patch here:
http://code.google.com/p/mercurial-reviewboard/issues/detail?id=8

Chris Bayley

On Dec 3 2009, 2:13 pm, Akhilesh akhileshjo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks Guys for your comments on the approach. I agree completely with
 y'all - its a dirty approach and has many shortcomings.
 Should I file a feature request for permanent/robust solution?

 On Dec 2, 2:41 pm, Thilo-Alexander Ginkel th...@ginkel.com wrote:

  On Wednesday 02 December 2009 22:08:26 Chris Clark wrote:

   Modifying the registry and then restoring is not a great idea. I can see
   why you are doing it but I'd encourage you to NOT do this. There is a
   potential here for a background web app to fail (e.g. web browser based
   IM tool).

  Not only that, but there is an ugly race condition hidden in that pattern:
  Start post-review twice in parallel and you might end up with no configured
  proxy if you have the following execution order:

  Instance 1                    Instance 2
  --                    --
  p := read setting
  disable proxy
                                p2 := read setting
                                disable proxy
  set proxy - p
                                set proxy - p2

  I fixed the issue for my installation using the approach suggested by Chris 
  in
  1eb5631b0911241645m59efcbe0i6c5de6c600313...@mail.gmail.com, which works
  like a charm.

  Regards,
  Thilo

-- 
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