Re: What is the status of ClearCase integration on Windows?
Having a version that doesn't require an SCM is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. We require an SCM to grab the full files so we can even build the diffs. There's way too much that would have to be changed and worked around if we were to remove this requirement. I would much rather someone take over really making the ClearCase support rock-solid. Not having access to a server to test and develop against, maintaining this by ourselves is difficult at best. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Sassan sassan...@verifone.com wrote: OK, I am beginning to see Dan's point of view. think I am going to put off the idea of getting RB to work with ClearCase at this point. I have discovered a reference to /vobs substring as part of the file path in postreview. # Removing anything before the last /vobs # because it may be repeated. elem_path_idx = elem_path.rfind(/vobs) if elem_path_idx != -1: elem_path = elem_path[elem_path_idx:len(elem_path)].strip(\) This apparently assumes that the vob server is running Linux/Unix which is not the case here. I could try to fix this but I am not sure where else this assumption has been made. However I do like the uploading of an abstract diff file on the client side as implemented in: http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1197/ Also in our software change process, code reviews are not always the final step before changes become part of the core. So technically speaking we would not even want approved changes to be checked automatically after a code review approval !! I was wondering how difficult would it be to have an entirely SCM free, partial implementation of RB in which the abstract diffs only live in RB where they go through the review/modify/approve cycle without ever having to come back to an SCM. Or if we must have one, to setup some sort of mock SCM object (Using svn, git or anything else) only to interface with RB, to receive the diff's and dumping them. Sassan On Jan 16, 4:36 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Indeed.. Shame IBM isn't using Review Board (at least, I don't know if they are). Maybe they could give us a license or some code or something. Little by little, I'm setting up some build/test VMs, and I'm hoping to get to a point where we can have better post-review and Review Board tests against installed servers of various types. But it's a long, time-consuming project. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote: I don't know how similarly people use Clearcase, but I am fairly certain that the way my organization uses it is very non-standard. The typical review scenario would be to review modified code in a view, not checked in code. Fitting Clearcase's model into Reviewboard is a bit of square in round hole problem, though at the most basic level you can do the same thing that's done for other SCM systems: provide a base revision set and diff against it. Some of the stuff you mentioned is all possible, though it doesn't fit nicely into the ReviewBoard model as-is. Feel free to start up a thread in the dev mailing list and I'll help with whatever I can. However, I personally think your time might be better spent getting rid of Clearcase from your organization :) Christian, you'd likely need a mighty generous donor to get a Clearcase license. You'll also probably regret it once you try to set the beast up... On Jan 15, 8:02 pm, Sassan sassan...@verifone.com wrote: At least for ClearCase, most places have a standard naming convention for their views and/or config specs. Either way all it takes is for the client to prompt for and pass two view tags (strings) or config specs (small ascii files) in order for the web server to start the before and after views of the change locally on the server host and generate the diff... no file copy will be needed. This might be easier than dealing with verson extended pathnames. Dealing with directory changes (moving files from one place to another / renaming the files) is more difficult and we will need to use the ClearCase Object ID strings instead of file path names. On Jan 15, 5:51 pm, Chris Clark chris.cl...@ingres.com wrote: Thilo-Alexander Ginkel wrote: On Friday 15 January 2010 23:20:32 Sassan wrote: I am also thinking it might be a good idea to add a repository independent base functionality to the post-review script where it is handed the root directory of two source trees, before and after the change and it will then just compare the files and post a review. This
Re: What is the status of ClearCase integration on Windows?
OK, I am beginning to see Dan's point of view. think I am going to put off the idea of getting RB to work with ClearCase at this point. I have discovered a reference to /vobs substring as part of the file path in postreview. # Removing anything before the last /vobs # because it may be repeated. elem_path_idx = elem_path.rfind(/vobs) if elem_path_idx != -1: elem_path = elem_path[elem_path_idx:len(elem_path)].strip(\) This apparently assumes that the vob server is running Linux/Unix which is not the case here. I could try to fix this but I am not sure where else this assumption has been made. However I do like the uploading of an abstract diff file on the client side as implemented in: http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1197/ Also in our software change process, code reviews are not always the final step before changes become part of the core. So technically speaking we would not even want approved changes to be checked automatically after a code review approval !! I was wondering how difficult would it be to have an entirely SCM free, partial implementation of RB in which the abstract diffs only live in RB where they go through the review/modify/approve cycle without ever having to come back to an SCM. Or if we must have one, to setup some sort of mock SCM object (Using svn, git or anything else) only to interface with RB, to receive the diff's and dumping them. Sassan On Jan 16, 4:36 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Indeed.. Shame IBM isn't using Review Board (at least, I don't know if they are). Maybe they could give us a license or some code or something. Little by little, I'm setting up some build/test VMs, and I'm hoping to get to a point where we can have better post-review and Review Board tests against installed servers of various types. But it's a long, time-consuming project. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote: I don't know how similarly people use Clearcase, but I am fairly certain that the way my organization uses it is very non-standard. The typical review scenario would be to review modified code in a view, not checked in code. Fitting Clearcase's model into Reviewboard is a bit of square in round hole problem, though at the most basic level you can do the same thing that's done for other SCM systems: provide a base revision set and diff against it. Some of the stuff you mentioned is all possible, though it doesn't fit nicely into the ReviewBoard model as-is. Feel free to start up a thread in the dev mailing list and I'll help with whatever I can. However, I personally think your time might be better spent getting rid of Clearcase from your organization :) Christian, you'd likely need a mighty generous donor to get a Clearcase license. You'll also probably regret it once you try to set the beast up... On Jan 15, 8:02 pm, Sassan sassan...@verifone.com wrote: At least for ClearCase, most places have a standard naming convention for their views and/or config specs. Either way all it takes is for the client to prompt for and pass two view tags (strings) or config specs (small ascii files) in order for the web server to start the before and after views of the change locally on the server host and generate the diff... no file copy will be needed. This might be easier than dealing with verson extended pathnames. Dealing with directory changes (moving files from one place to another / renaming the files) is more difficult and we will need to use the ClearCase Object ID strings instead of file path names. On Jan 15, 5:51 pm, Chris Clark chris.cl...@ingres.com wrote: Thilo-Alexander Ginkel wrote: On Friday 15 January 2010 23:20:32 Sassan wrote: I am also thinking it might be a good idea to add a repository independent base functionality to the post-review script where it is handed the root directory of two source trees, before and after the change and it will then just compare the files and post a review. This way anyone with any source repository can just create the before and after soure trees outside RB and pass the roots of the source trees to the post-review script for posting. This won't work as Review Board needs to be able to access the respective SCM repository from the server-side to apply the posted diff to the base revision. For the server this is true. RE the client, http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1197/sortofdoes this. It allows any diff to be sent to reviewboard but it had better be a valid diff :-) Chris- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/
Re: What is the status of ClearCase integration on Windows?
I don't know how similarly people use Clearcase, but I am fairly certain that the way my organization uses it is very non-standard. The typical review scenario would be to review modified code in a view, not checked in code. Fitting Clearcase's model into Reviewboard is a bit of square in round hole problem, though at the most basic level you can do the same thing that's done for other SCM systems: provide a base revision set and diff against it. Some of the stuff you mentioned is all possible, though it doesn't fit nicely into the ReviewBoard model as-is. Feel free to start up a thread in the dev mailing list and I'll help with whatever I can. However, I personally think your time might be better spent getting rid of Clearcase from your organization :) Christian, you'd likely need a mighty generous donor to get a Clearcase license. You'll also probably regret it once you try to set the beast up... On Jan 15, 8:02 pm, Sassan sassan...@verifone.com wrote: At least for ClearCase, most places have a standard naming convention for their views and/or config specs. Either way all it takes is for the client to prompt for and pass two view tags (strings) or config specs (small ascii files) in order for the web server to start the before and after views of the change locally on the server host and generate the diff... no file copy will be needed. This might be easier than dealing with verson extended pathnames. Dealing with directory changes (moving files from one place to another / renaming the files) is more difficult and we will need to use the ClearCase Object ID strings instead of file path names. On Jan 15, 5:51 pm, Chris Clark chris.cl...@ingres.com wrote: Thilo-Alexander Ginkel wrote: On Friday 15 January 2010 23:20:32 Sassan wrote: I am also thinking it might be a good idea to add a repository independent base functionality to the post-review script where it is handed the root directory of two source trees, before and after the change and it will then just compare the files and post a review. This way anyone with any source repository can just create the before and after soure trees outside RB and pass the roots of the source trees to the post-review script for posting. This won't work as Review Board needs to be able to access the respective SCM repository from the server-side to apply the posted diff to the base revision. For the server this is true. RE the client,http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1197/sortof does this. It allows any diff to be sent to reviewboard but it had better be a valid diff :-) Chris- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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: What is the status of ClearCase integration on Windows?
Indeed.. Shame IBM isn't using Review Board (at least, I don't know if they are). Maybe they could give us a license or some code or something. Little by little, I'm setting up some build/test VMs, and I'm hoping to get to a point where we can have better post-review and Review Board tests against installed servers of various types. But it's a long, time-consuming project. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote: I don't know how similarly people use Clearcase, but I am fairly certain that the way my organization uses it is very non-standard. The typical review scenario would be to review modified code in a view, not checked in code. Fitting Clearcase's model into Reviewboard is a bit of square in round hole problem, though at the most basic level you can do the same thing that's done for other SCM systems: provide a base revision set and diff against it. Some of the stuff you mentioned is all possible, though it doesn't fit nicely into the ReviewBoard model as-is. Feel free to start up a thread in the dev mailing list and I'll help with whatever I can. However, I personally think your time might be better spent getting rid of Clearcase from your organization :) Christian, you'd likely need a mighty generous donor to get a Clearcase license. You'll also probably regret it once you try to set the beast up... On Jan 15, 8:02 pm, Sassan sassan...@verifone.com wrote: At least for ClearCase, most places have a standard naming convention for their views and/or config specs. Either way all it takes is for the client to prompt for and pass two view tags (strings) or config specs (small ascii files) in order for the web server to start the before and after views of the change locally on the server host and generate the diff... no file copy will be needed. This might be easier than dealing with verson extended pathnames. Dealing with directory changes (moving files from one place to another / renaming the files) is more difficult and we will need to use the ClearCase Object ID strings instead of file path names. On Jan 15, 5:51 pm, Chris Clark chris.cl...@ingres.com wrote: Thilo-Alexander Ginkel wrote: On Friday 15 January 2010 23:20:32 Sassan wrote: I am also thinking it might be a good idea to add a repository independent base functionality to the post-review script where it is handed the root directory of two source trees, before and after the change and it will then just compare the files and post a review. This way anyone with any source repository can just create the before and after soure trees outside RB and pass the roots of the source trees to the post-review script for posting. This won't work as Review Board needs to be able to access the respective SCM repository from the server-side to apply the posted diff to the base revision. For the server this is true. RE the client, http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1197/sortof does this. It allows any diff to be sent to reviewboard but it had better be a valid diff :-) Chris- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- 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: What is the status of ClearCase integration on Windows?
Hi Sassan,
The latest docs have some instructions on how to use post-review with
Clearcase. In fact, it's the only way to post a review with Clearcase.
http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/users/tools/post-review/
I wrote it using some unix-ish examples, but I actually tested the
instructions under Windows. post-review's Clearcase support is fairly
crude, but it will work for reviewing modified code in a view that has
not been checked in.
Note that you actually need to modify post-review.py to make it work
in your environment, so I recommend pulling it from git and running
setup.py develop. If someone wants to just add these hard-coded values
as options, this won't be necessary anymore.
Dan
On Jan 14, 7:07 pm, Sassan sassan...@verifone.com wrote:
Does anyone know what is and is not currently supported for ClearCase
as an SCM tool on Windows?
For example I see instructions for posting commited code reviews using
post-review.exe under ClearCase section
inhttp://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/1.0/users/tools/post-review/
Does the Todo mean it is only on the wish list and not yet
implemented?
I also see a --label=LABEL under ClearCase options for post-
review.exe but I am not clear as to how a single label can designate a
diff of two distinct revisions.
I tried this anyway and I got::
Traceback (most recent call last):
File C:\Python25\Scripts\post-review-script.py, line 8, in
module load_entry_point('RBTools==0.2beta2', 'console_scripts',
'post-review')()
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 2509, in main
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 954, in diff_label
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 947, in diff
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 811, in get_extended_namespace
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 790, in get_previous_version
ValueError: too many values to unpack
Do you know how I get to the postreview.py script inside the rbtools
egg to modify it?
On the other hand it is easy enough for me to generate the diffs
myself out of ClearCase, but is there any way for me post these
directly into the RB server ?
Maybe by passing them to post-review.exe but only to be posted to the
RB server ?
Thanks,
Sassan
--
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: What is the status of ClearCase integration on Windows?
I would love a patch to move that functionality out into a .reviewboardrc. I
haven't done it myself due to lack of a Clearcase server to test with
(though if anybody wants to donate a license, we can get some automated
tests for stuff going :).
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
Hi Sassan,
The latest docs have some instructions on how to use post-review with
Clearcase. In fact, it's the only way to post a review with Clearcase.
http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/users/tools/post-review/
I wrote it using some unix-ish examples, but I actually tested the
instructions under Windows. post-review's Clearcase support is fairly
crude, but it will work for reviewing modified code in a view that has
not been checked in.
Note that you actually need to modify post-review.py to make it work
in your environment, so I recommend pulling it from git and running
setup.py develop. If someone wants to just add these hard-coded values
as options, this won't be necessary anymore.
Dan
On Jan 14, 7:07 pm, Sassan sassan...@verifone.com wrote:
Does anyone know what is and is not currently supported for ClearCase
as an SCM tool on Windows?
For example I see instructions for posting commited code reviews using
post-review.exe under ClearCase section inhttp://
www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/1.0/users/tools/post-review/
Does the Todo mean it is only on the wish list and not yet
implemented?
I also see a --label=LABEL under ClearCase options for post-
review.exe but I am not clear as to how a single label can designate a
diff of two distinct revisions.
I tried this anyway and I got::
Traceback (most recent call last):
File C:\Python25\Scripts\post-review-script.py, line 8, in
moduleload_entry_point('RBTools==0.2beta2', 'console_scripts',
'post-review')()
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 2509, in main
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 954, in diff_label
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 947, in diff
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 811, in get_extended_namespace
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 790, in get_previous_version
ValueError: too many values to unpack
Do you know how I get to the postreview.py script inside the rbtools
egg to modify it?
On the other hand it is easy enough for me to generate the diffs
myself out of ClearCase, but is there any way for me post these
directly into the RB server ?
Maybe by passing them to post-review.exe but only to be posted to the
RB server ?
Thanks,
Sassan
--
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.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
--
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: What is the status of ClearCase integration on Windows?
I am happy to try to catch up with python scripting add that
functionality and possibly more to it.
I would like some instructions on how and where to get the source out
of git and any special tools I will need for development.
Thanks,
Sassan
On Jan 15, 3:35 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote:
I would love a patch to move that functionality out into a .reviewboardrc. I
haven't done it myself due to lack of a Clearcase server to test with
(though if anybody wants to donate a license, we can get some automated
tests for stuff going :).
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
Hi Sassan,
The latest docs have some instructions on how to use post-review with
Clearcase. In fact, it's the only way to post a review with Clearcase.
http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/users/tools/post-review/
I wrote it using some unix-ish examples, but I actually tested the
instructions under Windows. post-review's Clearcase support is fairly
crude, but it will work for reviewing modified code in a view that has
not been checked in.
Note that you actually need to modify post-review.py to make it work
in your environment, so I recommend pulling it from git and running
setup.py develop. If someone wants to just add these hard-coded values
as options, this won't be necessary anymore.
Dan
On Jan 14, 7:07 pm, Sassan sassan...@verifone.com wrote:
Does anyone know what is and is not currently supported for ClearCase
as an SCM tool on Windows?
For example I see instructions for posting commited code reviews using
post-review.exe under ClearCase section inhttp://
www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/1.0/users/tools/post-review/
Does the Todo mean it is only on the wish list and not yet
implemented?
I also see a --label=LABEL under ClearCase options for post-
review.exe but I am not clear as to how a single label can designate a
diff of two distinct revisions.
I tried this anyway and I got::
Traceback (most recent call last):
File C:\Python25\Scripts\post-review-script.py, line 8, in
module load_entry_point('RBTools==0.2beta2', 'console_scripts',
'post-review')()
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 2509, in main
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 954, in diff_label
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 947, in diff
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 811, in get_extended_namespace
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 790, in get_previous_version
ValueError: too many values to unpack
Do you know how I get to the postreview.py script inside the rbtools
egg to modify it?
On the other hand it is easy enough for me to generate the diffs
myself out of ClearCase, but is there any way for me post these
directly into the RB server ?
Maybe by passing them to post-review.exe but only to be posted to the
RB server ?
Thanks,
Sassan
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--
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: What is the status of ClearCase integration on Windows?
On Friday 15 January 2010 23:20:32 Sassan wrote: I am also thinking it might be a good idea to add a repository independent base functionality to the post-review script where it is handed the root directory of two source trees, before and after the change and it will then just compare the files and post a review. This way anyone with any source repository can just create the before and after soure trees outside RB and pass the roots of the source trees to the post-review script for posting. This won't work as Review Board needs to be able to access the respective SCM repository from the server-side to apply the posted diff to the base revision. 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
What is the status of ClearCase integration on Windows?
Does anyone know what is and is not currently supported for ClearCase
as an SCM tool on Windows?
For example I see instructions for posting commited code reviews using
post-review.exe under ClearCase section in
http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/1.0/users/tools/post-review/
Does the Todo mean it is only on the wish list and not yet
implemented?
I also see a --label=LABEL under ClearCase options for post-
review.exe but I am not clear as to how a single label can designate a
diff of two distinct revisions.
I tried this anyway and I got::
Traceback (most recent call last):
File C:\Python25\Scripts\post-review-script.py, line 8, in
moduleload_entry_point('RBTools==0.2beta2', 'console_scripts',
'post-review')()
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 2509, in main
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 954, in diff_label
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 947, in diff
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 811, in get_extended_namespace
File C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.2beta2-py2.5.egg
\rbtools\postreview.py, line 790, in get_previous_version
ValueError: too many values to unpack
Do you know how I get to the postreview.py script inside the rbtools
egg to modify it?
On the other hand it is easy enough for me to generate the diffs
myself out of ClearCase, but is there any way for me post these
directly into the RB server ?
Maybe by passing them to post-review.exe but only to be posted to the
RB server ?
Thanks,
Sassan
--
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
