Re: Unable to upload git patch after upgrading reviewboard to version

[Christian Hammond]

Hi Pritesh,

A couple important notes:

1) Git and Mercurial are not compatible, and Git repositories cannot be
used with Mercurial repository configurations. It may have appeared to be
working due to Mercurial understanding a variant of Git diffs, and with the
local developer using Mercurial and generating Git diffs, but using a local
Git clone and a Mercurial configuration is not possible. They would have
different SHAs, and you would not be able to fetch the files from the
repository.

Unless this is some kind of Git/Mercurial bridge, but I don't know anything
about your setup. I'll need to know more.

2) Git's remoting protocol is limited and does not support the kind of
fine-grained access we require from a remote repository. To use a remote
Git repository, you need to configure the "raw file URL mask" field, which
is basically a way to point to some URL that, given a file path and Git
blob SHA, will return the contents of a file. This requires a service like
cgit or gitweb.


Based on my current understanding, I'm not sure how this would have worked
before. What service is hosting that URL shown in the screenshot?

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond
President/CEO of Beanbag 
Makers of Review Board 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:38 PM, pritesh pagar 
wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
> Below are the Repo configuration of reviewboard:
>
>
> 
>
> Note:
> 1. In repo configuration, You can see Repo Type is Mercurial even though
> repo is a git repo. This was requirement from some developer and was
> working correctly before upgrade.
> I tried changing repo type to GIT as well, still got same error.
>
> 2. Git repo is hosted on our Inhouse SCM server, not on git cloud.
>
> Regards,
> Pritesh
>
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:35:39 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pritesh,
>>
>> Can you show me the configuration for your repository in Review Board?
>>
>> Do existing review requests work?
>>
>> How are you generating/uploading the diff?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> Christian Hammond
>> President/CEO of Beanbag 
>> Makers of Review Board 
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:41 AM, pritesh pagar 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Recently I upgraded reviewboard from 2.0.15 to 2.5.7.
>>>
>>> After upgrade, diff upload for git repo is failng.
>>>
>>> *ERROR ON UI:*
>>> The patch to 'index.js' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have
>>> been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.cMAy_Q' for debugging purposes.
>>> `patch` returned:
>>>
>>> This may be a bug in the software, a temporary outage, or an issue with
>>> the format of your diff.
>>>
>>> *After debugging, I found following error in reviewboard error logs:*
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-
>>> py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py", line 299, in get
>>> response = renderer.render_to_response(request)
>>>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-
>>> py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", line 56, in
>>> render_to_response
>>> return HttpResponse(self.render_to_string(request))
>>>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-
>>> py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", line 74, in
>>> render_to_string
>>> large_data=True)
>>>   File 
>>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
>>> line 295, in cache_memoize
>>> compress_large_data))
>>>   File 
>>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
>>> line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
>>> items = items_or_callable()
>>>   File 
>>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
>>> line 292, in 
>>> lambda: [lookup_callable()],
>>>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-
>>> py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", line 73, in 
>>> lambda: self.render_to_string_uncached(request),
>>>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-
>>> py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", line 87, in
>>> render_to_string_uncached
>>> request=request)
>>>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-
>>> py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py", line 667, in
>>> populate_diff_chunks
>>> chunks = list(generator.get_chunks())
>>>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-
>>> py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py", line 756, in
>>> get_chunks
>>> for chunk in super(DiffChunkGenerator, self).get_chunks(cache_key):
>>>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-
>>> 

Re: Unable to upload git patch after upgrading reviewboard to version

[pritesh pagar]

Hi Christian,

Below are the Repo configuration of reviewboard:



Note:
1. In repo configuration, You can see Repo Type is Mercurial even though 
repo is a git repo. This was requirement from some developer and was 
working correctly before upgrade.
I tried changing repo type to GIT as well, still got same error.

2. Git repo is hosted on our Inhouse SCM server, not on git cloud.

Regards,
Pritesh

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:35:39 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Pritesh,
>
> Can you show me the configuration for your repository in Review Board?
>
> Do existing review requests work?
>
> How are you generating/uploading the diff?
>
> Christian
>
> -- 
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag 
> Makers of Review Board 
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:41 AM, pritesh pagar  > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently I upgraded reviewboard from 2.0.15 to 2.5.7.
>>
>> After upgrade, diff upload for git repo is failng.
>>
>> *ERROR ON UI:*
>> The patch to 'index.js' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have 
>> been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.cMAy_Q' for debugging purposes.
>> `patch` returned: 
>>
>> This may be a bug in the software, a temporary outage, or an issue with 
>> the format of your diff.
>>
>> *After debugging, I found following error in reviewboard error logs:*
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py",
>>  
>> line 299, in get
>> response = renderer.render_to_response(request)
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
>>  
>> line 56, in render_to_response
>> return HttpResponse(self.render_to_string(request))
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
>>  
>> line 74, in render_to_string
>> large_data=True)
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
>>  
>> line 295, in cache_memoize
>> compress_large_data))
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
>>  
>> line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
>> items = items_or_callable()
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
>>  
>> line 292, in 
>> lambda: [lookup_callable()],
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
>>  
>> line 73, in 
>> lambda: self.render_to_string_uncached(request),
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
>>  
>> line 87, in render_to_string_uncached
>> request=request)
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
>>  
>> line 667, in populate_diff_chunks
>> chunks = list(generator.get_chunks())
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
>>  
>> line 756, in get_chunks
>> for chunk in super(DiffChunkGenerator, self).get_chunks(cache_key):
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
>>  
>> line 107, in get_chunks
>> large_data=True)
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
>>  
>> line 295, in cache_memoize
>> compress_large_data))
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
>>  
>> line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
>> items = items_or_callable()
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
>>  
>> line 292, in 
>> lambda: [lookup_callable()],
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
>>  
>> line 106, in 
>> lambda: list(self.get_chunks_uncached()),
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
>>  
>> line 763, in get_chunks_uncached
>> new = get_patched_file(old, self.filediff, self.request)
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
>>  
>> line 233, in get_patched_file
>> return patch(diff, buffer, filediff.dest_file, request)
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
>>  
>> line 169, in patch
>> 'output': 

Re: Unable to upload git patch after upgrading reviewboard to version

[Christian Hammond]

Hi Pritesh,

Can you show me the configuration for your repository in Review Board?

Do existing review requests work?

How are you generating/uploading the diff?

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond
President/CEO of Beanbag 
Makers of Review Board 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:41 AM, pritesh pagar 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Recently I upgraded reviewboard from 2.0.15 to 2.5.7.
>
> After upgrade, diff upload for git repo is failng.
>
> *ERROR ON UI:*
> The patch to 'index.js' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have
> been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.cMAy_Q' for debugging purposes.
> `patch` returned:
>
> This may be a bug in the software, a temporary outage, or an issue with
> the format of your diff.
>
> *After debugging, I found following error in reviewboard error logs:*
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py", line 299, in get
> response = renderer.render_to_response(request)
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", line 56, in
> render_to_response
> return HttpResponse(self.render_to_string(request))
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", line 74, in
> render_to_string
> large_data=True)
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-
> py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", line 295, in cache_memoize
> compress_large_data))
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-
> py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
> items = items_or_callable()
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-
> py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", line 292, in 
> lambda: [lookup_callable()],
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", line 73, in 
> lambda: self.render_to_string_uncached(request),
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", line 87, in
> render_to_string_uncached
> request=request)
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py", line 667, in
> populate_diff_chunks
> chunks = list(generator.get_chunks())
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py", line 756, in
> get_chunks
> for chunk in super(DiffChunkGenerator, self).get_chunks(cache_key):
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py", line 107, in
> get_chunks
> large_data=True)
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-
> py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", line 295, in cache_memoize
> compress_large_data))
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-
> py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
> items = items_or_callable()
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-
> py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", line 292, in 
> lambda: [lookup_callable()],
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py", line 106, in
> 
> lambda: list(self.get_chunks_uncached()),
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py", line 763, in
> get_chunks_uncached
> new = get_patched_file(old, self.filediff, self.request)
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py", line 233, in
> get_patched_file
> return patch(diff, buffer, filediff.dest_file, request)
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.
> 7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py", line 169, in patch
> 'output': stderr,
> Exception: The patch to 'index.js' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary
> files have been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.cMAy_Q' for debugging purposes.
> `patch` returned:
>
>
> *Could this error be caused because of GIT version and REVIEBOARD version
> incompatibility, or could it be something else?*
>
> *Note: This issue is only in case of git patch upload, patch of mercurial
> repo is uploaded correctly.*
>
> Regards,
> Pritesh
>
> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://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 

Re: reviewboard connecting to the cloudfront when publishing review changes (comments, issues, closing review...)

[Christian Hammond]

Hi Antonio,

That's not one of our servers, from what I can tell, and there's nothing in
our code referencing this at all. You're seeing this server-side? Is this
only when posting a new change for review using command line tools, or
through the web UI? Do you see it when just browsing through the UI?

We do use https://secure.gravatar.com/, but I don't know whether this is
served on CloudFront.

If you're on the Admin UI page, we have a browser-side query to
beanbaginc.com to check on the support level of the server.

Any chance you have a browser extension that might be accessing something?

Can you give me the exact command you ran? I'll see if it pops up on my end.

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond
President/CEO of Beanbag 
Makers of Review Board 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Antonio Soldo 
wrote:

> I addition to my question, the reason I'm asking such thing is that we
> have our instance of ReviewBoard (and any other tool hosted at us) behind
> proxy, and all outgoing request must be channeled through this proxy. As in
> this case, proxy is bypassed (not consulted), and all outgoing public
> network request are discarded. Because of this, application is slow (for
> example, posting a comment in review takes up to 3 mins) and application is
> barely usable.
>
> As a continuation on first question, is there a possibility to run
> reviewboard in such "eco-system" (where every public http request must go
> through proxy)?
>
> What we tried is to set env variable http_proxy and https_proxy to point
> at out proxy. Running command 'lynx gooogle.com' on CentOS that backs
> ReviewBoard went through proxy and response was received. But repeating
> comment publishing on review resulted in same manner as first time, a
> direct request to cloudfront was made instead of going through proxy.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 4:02:22 PM UTC+1, Antonio Soldo wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Is there a reason why is ReviewBoard trying to connect to the
>> server-54-192-186-70.cdg51.r.cloudfront.net after every change that is
>> published on review?
>> I was monitoring my net traffic and noticed this connection and did not
>> find anything specific why this server would be contacted. In my admin
>> dashboard I defined that all files are hosted locally.
>> Also, inspecting web server configuration did not give me any clue. I'm
>> attaching captured traffic so everybody could see request made to above
>> mentioned server.
>>
>> I'm hosting ReviewBoard locally, and currently running version 2.5.7 on
>> CentOS 7.3.1611. ReviewBoard is run on Apache web server.
>>
>> Thank you in advance
>>
>> --
> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
> https://rbcommons.com/
> Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.

Re: RB with TFS

[Christian Hammond]

Hi Geoffrey,

The RBTools side is open source, and we definitely welcome contributions
for this! The Power Pack side is a different story. I understand the desire
to have the source open in order to get contributions and help patch things
up, believe me. The same argument could be made for the other features
(Reports, PDF review, etc.) in Power Pack, but releasing the source for
Power Pack features means no longer being able to effectively sell Power
Pack licenses, and that's a big part of how we're able to work on Review
Board full-time. Power Pack is a big part of Review Board's funding.

We've been working closely with several companies who use TFS to try to
resolve the issues they hit, sending beta builds of Power Pack and RBTools
and collecting detailed information to resolve problems. That's been
working out well for them and for us so far. We'd like the chance to do the
same with you. I know it's not the same as having the Power Pack source
code on your machine, but it means not waiting around for a release that
might or might not fix the problems you hit.

If you (or anyone else) are interested in working with us to test builds
and provide detailed info (files, debug output, etc.), let me know and
we'll reach out about it.

As for the missing code, was this on the Power Pack side, or RBTools? I'm
trying to figure out what missing code you're referring to. The only thing
I can think of similar to this was from April of last year, and it wasn't
missing code, but rather a version compatibility issue that could occur
depending on what version of Power Pack and Review Board you were using.

Christian


-- 
Christian Hammond
President/CEO of Beanbag 
Makers of Review Board 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Geoffrey  wrote:

> David, Neil,
>
> If the RB team were to release the TFS server portion as part of the core
> release, I would be glad to contribute as well.
>
> Please try to understand from my team's perspective.  We have not been
> able to get TFS 2015 to work with RB.  As an example, as part of our
> evaluation, we tried to use RB and RBTools with TFS and the client tools
> threw exceptions.  I did some poking around and found it was due to an
> entire method missing from the source code! (I think it was fixed in the
> last official update).   It is hard to 'sell' this to my company if it
> doesn't work due to missing source code.  Please don't take this as being
> overly critical as I am not trying to be.  Just try to understand from the
> perspective of other TFS users.  I think if it was open, I would have tried
> to fix it and contribute the fix back.
>
> I have had outstanding success with RB in the past and would really like
> to help get it to work well with TFS.  From the sounds of it, I think other
> people would be willing to contribute as well but I would be unsuccessful
> in trying to sell this to management in the current form.
>
> Thanks,
> Geoff
>
>
>
> We have tried to get RB to work with TFS 2015 and it doesn't seem to work
> right.  Do you recommend me to try anything?
>
> On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 4:50:49 PM UTC-5, David Trowbridge wrote:
>>
>> Geoff,
>>
>> On the server, TFS 2013 and newer is supported. Running the Review Board
>> server on Linux is fine.
>>
>> One new wrinkle on the client side is that the RBTools interface won't
>> work with workspaces created by the new VS 2017 release, because Microsoft
>> broke compatibility with their own SDK (we're looking into options). If
>> you're using older VS releases, they should work fine.
>>
>> As far as making TFS support part of the core release, it's possible that
>> will happen eventually but not soon. We've found that commercial version
>> control systems (like TFS or ClearCase) attract a lot *less* open-source
>> contribution than other systems, probably because very few open-source
>> developers use them. Right now the only way that it's commercially viable
>> for us to support it is to have it as part of Power Pack.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:49 AM Geoffrey  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have used Review Board at my previous employer with great success and
>>> it was really awesome.  On that team, we used RB in the typical fashion
>>> with git.  The RB server was on linux and the clients were all (mostly)
>>> linux.
>>>
>>> In my new role, I am experimenting with RB with a TFS/TFVC repository
>>> and am running into a lot of issues.  I setup an Ubuntu server and
>>> installed the powerpack extension.  For now, it is just me experimenting so
>>> the 2 user limit is not an issue.  My client machine uses windows.
>>>
>>> This leads me to a few questions:
>>>
>>>- Does RB/powerpack support TFS 2015 or 2017? (some of the documents
>>>I read were a little stale and out of sync with release notes)
>>>- Does the powerpack extension work correctly with TFS while RB
>>>server is hosted on 

Re: RB with TFS

[Geoffrey]

David, Neil,

If the RB team were to release the TFS server portion as part of the core 
release, I would be glad to contribute as well.  

Please try to understand from my team's perspective.  We have not been able 
to get TFS 2015 to work with RB.  As an example, as part of our evaluation, 
we tried to use RB and RBTools with TFS and the client tools threw 
exceptions.  I did some poking around and found it was due to an entire 
method missing from the source code! (I think it was fixed in the last 
official update).   It is hard to 'sell' this to my company if it doesn't 
work due to missing source code.  Please don't take this as being overly 
critical as I am not trying to be.  Just try to understand from the 
perspective of other TFS users.  I think if it was open, I would have tried 
to fix it and contribute the fix back.

I have had outstanding success with RB in the past and would really like to 
help get it to work well with TFS.  From the sounds of it, I think other 
people would be willing to contribute as well but I would be unsuccessful 
in trying to sell this to management in the current form.

Thanks,
Geoff

 

We have tried to get RB to work with TFS 2015 and it doesn't seem to work 
right.  Do you recommend me to try anything?

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 4:50:49 PM UTC-5, David Trowbridge wrote:
>
> Geoff,
>
> On the server, TFS 2013 and newer is supported. Running the Review Board 
> server on Linux is fine.
>
> One new wrinkle on the client side is that the RBTools interface won't 
> work with workspaces created by the new VS 2017 release, because Microsoft 
> broke compatibility with their own SDK (we're looking into options). If 
> you're using older VS releases, they should work fine.
>
> As far as making TFS support part of the core release, it's possible that 
> will happen eventually but not soon. We've found that commercial version 
> control systems (like TFS or ClearCase) attract a lot *less* open-source 
> contribution than other systems, probably because very few open-source 
> developers use them. Right now the only way that it's commercially viable 
> for us to support it is to have it as part of Power Pack.
>
> -David
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:49 AM Geoffrey  
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have used Review Board at my previous employer with great success and 
>> it was really awesome.  On that team, we used RB in the typical fashion 
>> with git.  The RB server was on linux and the clients were all (mostly) 
>> linux.
>>
>> In my new role, I am experimenting with RB with a TFS/TFVC repository and 
>> am running into a lot of issues.  I setup an Ubuntu server and installed 
>> the powerpack extension.  For now, it is just me experimenting so the 2 
>> user limit is not an issue.  My client machine uses windows.   
>>
>> This leads me to a few questions:
>>
>>- Does RB/powerpack support TFS 2015 or 2017? (some of the documents 
>>I read were a little stale and out of sync with release notes) 
>>- Does the powerpack extension work correctly with TFS while RB 
>>server is hosted on linux?
>>- Is there any intention of ever making TFS part of the free/open 
>>source version?
>>   - I believe there would be more users and more contribution to 
>>   make TFS stable.
>>   - It would probably lead to more users thus more potential 
>>   purchasers of the other powerpack features :)
>>   - It is hard to 'sell' the idea to management when it isn't stable 
>>   and/or requires much effort to configure.  More contribution will fix 
>>   this.  If it was purely open source and free, it would be much easier 
>> to 
>>   justify spending time.
>>
>>
>> ReviewBoard is an awesome tool and I think there is a huge world of TFS 
>> users out there who would enjoy it as well if it was easier to use for this 
>> specific case.  
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Geoff
>>
>> -- 
>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
>> https://rbcommons.com/
>> Happy user? Let us know! https://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...@googlegroups.com .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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 

Re: Review Board Ticket #4512: Localization is incorrect in the Admin UI Settings forms

[Christian Hammond]

--
To reply, visit https://hellosplat.com/s/beanbag/tickets/4512/
--

New update by chipx86
For Beanbag, Inc. > Review Board > Ticket #4512


Status:
- New
+ Confirmed


Milestones:
+ Release-2.0.x
+ Release-2.5.x
+ Release-3.0


Tags:
+ Component:Admin
+ EasyFix

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard-issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Review Board Ticket #4512: Localization is incorrect in the Admin UI Settings forms

[Christian Hammond]

--
To reply, visit https://hellosplat.com/s/beanbag/tickets/4512/
--

New ticket #4512 by chipx86
For Beanbag, Inc. > Review Board

Status: New
Tags: Priority:Medium, Type:Defect


--
Localization is incorrect in the Admin UI Settings forms
==

# What version are you running?
2.0+

# What's the URL of the page containing the problem?
/admin/settings/*


# What is the problem?
The forms in `reviewboard.admin.forms` use `ugettext` (as `_(...)`) for the 
form fields, which means they're localized at application initialization time 
rather than at page render time. They should be using `ugettext_lazy` as 
`_(...)`.

The code inside of functions that use `ugettext` should continue to do so, 
since those happen at render time.

So:

1. We should update the `_` alias to be for `ugettext_lazy` instead of 
`ugettext`, for anything used as members of the forms.
2. We should import `ugettext` and call that specifically for anything 
happening within a function.

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard-issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: RB with TFS

[David Trowbridge]

Geoff,

On the server, TFS 2013 and newer is supported. Running the Review Board
server on Linux is fine.

One new wrinkle on the client side is that the RBTools interface won't work
with workspaces created by the new VS 2017 release, because Microsoft broke
compatibility with their own SDK (we're looking into options). If you're
using older VS releases, they should work fine.

As far as making TFS support part of the core release, it's possible that
will happen eventually but not soon. We've found that commercial version
control systems (like TFS or ClearCase) attract a lot *less* open-source
contribution than other systems, probably because very few open-source
developers use them. Right now the only way that it's commercially viable
for us to support it is to have it as part of Power Pack.

-David

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:49 AM Geoffrey  wrote:

Hello,

I have used Review Board at my previous employer with great success and it
was really awesome.  On that team, we used RB in the typical fashion with
git.  The RB server was on linux and the clients were all (mostly) linux.

In my new role, I am experimenting with RB with a TFS/TFVC repository and
am running into a lot of issues.  I setup an Ubuntu server and installed
the powerpack extension.  For now, it is just me experimenting so the 2
user limit is not an issue.  My client machine uses windows.

This leads me to a few questions:

   - Does RB/powerpack support TFS 2015 or 2017? (some of the documents I
   read were a little stale and out of sync with release notes)
   - Does the powerpack extension work correctly with TFS while RB server
   is hosted on linux?
   - Is there any intention of ever making TFS part of the free/open source
   version?
  - I believe there would be more users and more contribution to make
  TFS stable.
  - It would probably lead to more users thus more potential purchasers
  of the other powerpack features :)
  - It is hard to 'sell' the idea to management when it isn't stable
  and/or requires much effort to configure.  More contribution will fix
  this.  If it was purely open source and free, it would be much easier to
  justify spending time.


ReviewBoard is an awesome tool and I think there is a huge world of TFS
users out there who would enjoy it as well if it was easier to use for this
specific case.

Thanks,
Geoff

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.

Re: RB with TFS

[neil patel]

Yeah, my team would really benefit from this as well. Let me know if you 
want any contribution help.

Neil





On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:49:24 PM UTC-5, Geoffrey wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have used Review Board at my previous employer with great success and it 
> was really awesome.  On that team, we used RB in the typical fashion with 
> git.  The RB server was on linux and the clients were all (mostly) linux.
>
> In my new role, I am experimenting with RB with a TFS/TFVC repository and 
> am running into a lot of issues.  I setup an Ubuntu server and installed 
> the powerpack extension.  For now, it is just me experimenting so the 2 
> user limit is not an issue.  My client machine uses windows.   
>
> This leads me to a few questions:
>
>- Does RB/powerpack support TFS 2015 or 2017? (some of the documents I 
>read were a little stale and out of sync with release notes) 
>- Does the powerpack extension work correctly with TFS while RB server 
>is hosted on linux?
>- Is there any intention of ever making TFS part of the free/open 
>source version?
>   - I believe there would be more users and more contribution to make 
>   TFS stable.
>   - It would probably lead to more users thus more potential 
>   purchasers of the other powerpack features :)
>   - It is hard to 'sell' the idea to management when it isn't stable 
>   and/or requires much effort to configure.  More contribution will fix 
> this. 
>If it was purely open source and free, it would be much easier to 
> justify 
>   spending time.
>
>
> ReviewBoard is an awesome tool and I think there is a huge world of TFS 
> users out there who would enjoy it as well if it was easier to use for this 
> specific case.  
>
> Thanks,
> Geoff
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.

Re: Migration Encoding issue

[jerome]

Yeah, look like it. 
I cleared all the password column into scmtools_repository tables. And then 
I could access the admin page properly and reenter them manually.

Seem to work now.
Thanks David

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.

Migration Encoding issue

[jerome]

Hi,
We have migrated both Mercurial HgWeb serve and Reviewboard from Windows to 
Linux. 


   1. Repos Files, NTFS, created under Windows
   2. Apache Hg cgi-bin Linux, mount the NTFS drive with cifs (Used to be 
   Apache under Windows and mount the same drive, same hgconfig file).
   3. ReviewBoard under Linux access the HG Web server via http. (used to 
   be under Windows and access the same http link)


The mercurial repos are still under an NTFS share drive and were created 
under Windows. I guess they have the default iso-8851-1 or cp1252 encoding, 
not sure how I can check this since the repos is huge and I don't know 
where the non ascii characters are.

We mount the drive into the Hg serve machine with Apache frontend. This 
seem to work as far as I can tell since I can browse the repository into 
the web interface. I can clone the Hg http access repos with TortoiseHg 
under Windows client without issue. (Sorry I don't have enough space under 
my Linux VM to clone it and see if this work there too).

I cannot use Reviewboard with this repos (web interface show, old reviews 
got imported and display just fine, user too... But my old repos are 
crashing when trying to posting for those repos and I cannot edit them into 
the web admin interface since I get the following error into the bitnami 
reviewboard apache log for the wsgi module when trying to access the 
http://myserver/reviewboard/admin/db/scmtools/repository/1/ 

[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214945 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] 'utf8' codec can't 
decode byte 0x8b in position 1: invalid start byte
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214949 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] Traceback (most 
recent call last):
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214953 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/handlers/base.py",
 
line 112, in get_response
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214958 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] response = 
wrapped_callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214962 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/contrib/admin/options.py",
 
line 465, in wrapper
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214966 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] return 
self.admin_site.admin_view(view)(*args, **kwargs)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214970 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/utils/decorators.py",
 
line 99, in _wrapped_view
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214974 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] response = 
view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214978 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/views/decorators/cache.py",
 
line 52, in _wrapped_view_func
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214982 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] response = 
view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214986 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/contrib/admin/sites.py",
 
line 198, in inner
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214990 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] return 
view(request, *args, **kwargs)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214994 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/utils/decorators.py",
 
line 29, in _wrapper
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.214998 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] return 
bound_func(*args, **kwargs)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215001 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/utils/decorators.py",
 
line 99, in _wrapped_view
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215006 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] response = 
view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215009 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/utils/decorators.py",
 
line 25, in bound_func
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215014 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] return func(self, 
*args2, **kwargs2)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215017 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/transaction.py",
 
line 371, in inner
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215021 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] return 
func(*args, **kwargs)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215024 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/venv/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/contrib/admin/options.py",
 
line 1270, in change_view
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215029 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] form = 
ModelForm(instance=obj)
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215032 2017] [:error] [pid 8927]   File 
"/opt/reviewboard-2.5.7-2/apps/reviewboard/htdocs/reviewboard/scmtools/forms.py",
 
line 431, in __init__
[Thu Jan 19 15:15:57.215036 2017] [:error] [pid 8927] 
self._populate_repository_info_fields()
[Thu Jan 19 

Re: reviewboard connecting to the cloudfront when publishing review changes (comments, issues, closing review...)

[Antonio Soldo]

I addition to my question, the reason I'm asking such thing is that we have 
our instance of ReviewBoard (and any other tool hosted at us) behind proxy, 
and all outgoing request must be channeled through this proxy. As in this 
case, proxy is bypassed (not consulted), and all outgoing public network 
request are discarded. Because of this, application is slow (for example, 
posting a comment in review takes up to 3 mins) and application is barely 
usable. 

As a continuation on first question, is there a possibility to run 
reviewboard in such "eco-system" (where every public http request must go 
through proxy)? 

What we tried is to set env variable http_proxy and https_proxy to point at 
out proxy. Running command 'lynx gooogle.com' on CentOS that backs 
ReviewBoard went through proxy and response was received. But repeating 
comment publishing on review resulted in same manner as first time, a 
direct request to cloudfront was made instead of going through proxy. 



On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 4:02:22 PM UTC+1, Antonio Soldo wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Is there a reason why is ReviewBoard trying to connect to the 
> server-54-192-186-70.cdg51.r.cloudfront.net after every change that is 
> published on review?
> I was monitoring my net traffic and noticed this connection and did not 
> find anything specific why this server would be contacted. In my admin 
> dashboard I defined that all files are hosted locally.
> Also, inspecting web server configuration did not give me any clue. I'm 
> attaching captured traffic so everybody could see request made to above 
> mentioned server.
>
> I'm hosting ReviewBoard locally, and currently running version 2.5.7 on 
> CentOS 7.3.1611. ReviewBoard is run on Apache web server.
>
> Thank you in advance
>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.

Create post commit reviews on web UI with local repositories

[Richard Peters]

Hi Community,

i have setup a ReviewBoard instance on the same Server along with a Redmine 
instance with the Redmine Git Hosting plugin, which manages a gitolite repo.
In ReviewBoard i added the local path of the repository, where it is stored 
in gitolite, so it's connected with a local path.
This works good so far, but i wondering if i cannot create a review based 
on branches in the web UI.
In which setup is this supported? I think a local path is one of the 
simplest cases or isn't?

Another general question: is it a good choice to point to the path in 
gitolite or would it be better to make a local clone in another place on 
the server?

Thanks :-)

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.

Unable to upload git patch after upgrading reviewboard to version

[pritesh pagar]

Hi,

Recently I upgraded reviewboard from 2.0.15 to 2.5.7.

After upgrade, diff upload for git repo is failng.

*ERROR ON UI:*
The patch to 'index.js' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have been 
left in '/tmp/reviewboard.cMAy_Q' for debugging purposes.
`patch` returned: 

This may be a bug in the software, a temporary outage, or an issue with the 
format of your diff.

*After debugging, I found following error in reviewboard error logs:*
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py",
 
line 299, in get
response = renderer.render_to_response(request)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
 
line 56, in render_to_response
return HttpResponse(self.render_to_string(request))
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
 
line 74, in render_to_string
large_data=True)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 295, in cache_memoize
compress_large_data))
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
items = items_or_callable()
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 292, in 
lambda: [lookup_callable()],
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
 
line 73, in 
lambda: self.render_to_string_uncached(request),
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
 
line 87, in render_to_string_uncached
request=request)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
 
line 667, in populate_diff_chunks
chunks = list(generator.get_chunks())
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
 
line 756, in get_chunks
for chunk in super(DiffChunkGenerator, self).get_chunks(cache_key):
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
 
line 107, in get_chunks
large_data=True)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 295, in cache_memoize
compress_large_data))
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
items = items_or_callable()
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Djblets-0.9.4-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
 
line 292, in 
lambda: [lookup_callable()],
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
 
line 106, in 
lambda: list(self.get_chunks_uncached()),
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
 
line 763, in get_chunks_uncached
new = get_patched_file(old, self.filediff, self.request)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
 
line 233, in get_patched_file
return patch(diff, buffer, filediff.dest_file, request)
  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.7-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
 
line 169, in patch
'output': stderr,
Exception: The patch to 'index.js' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary 
files have been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.cMAy_Q' for debugging purposes.
`patch` returned: 

   
*Could this error be caused because of GIT version and REVIEBOARD version 
incompatibility, or could it be something else?*

*Note: This issue is only in case of git patch upload, patch of mercurial 
repo is uploaded correctly.*

Regards,
Pritesh

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.

Re: ReviewBoard installation error (using clean CentOS7 from Docker)

[O. Holzkamp]

`rpm -q python-dns`  showed 
python-dns-1.11.1-2.20140901git9329daf.el7.noarch

After installing pyton-dns 1.12 everything worked fine.
Thanks a lot!

Am Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 00:50:06 UTC+1 schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM O. Holzkamp  > wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I had the same problems when trying to execute " rb-site install 
>> /var/www/reviewerBoard"
>>
>> After installing the proposed packages, the erro changed as following:
>>
>>
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File "/bin/rb-site", line 5, in 
>> from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 3011, in 
>> 
>> parse_requirements(__requires__), Environment()
>>
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 626, in 
>> resolve
>> raise DistributionNotFound(req)
>> pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: dnspython>=1.12.0
>>
>> Can you help me with that?
>>
>>
> Do you have python-dns installed on the system? It should have been pulled 
> in by python-djblets...
>
> What does `rpm -q python-dns` show you?
>
> If it's showing you python-dns-1.11.1-1.el7, you need to get 1.12.0 from 
> RHEL/CentOS 7.3. I should have put an explicit version requirement on the 
> package, but I forgot to account for the possibility that people might have 
> older versions already installed. I'll push out an update that enforces 
> this shortly.
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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/d/optout.

Re: RBTools Ticket #4470: UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xb0 in position 1: ordinal not in range(128)

[kone]

--
To reply, visit https://hellosplat.com/s/beanbag/tickets/4470/
--

New update by kone
For Beanbag, Inc. > RBTools > Ticket #4470


Reply:

Well, Thanks for the reply!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard-issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.