Hi Scott,
That's exactly the functionality I was looking for. Great! Now even my
review request pages provide a good overview. :-)
It would be helpful to underline this feature in the documentation /
user guide / Commenting on Lines:
Commenting on Lines
To
I might have missed it, but I can't seem to find a roadmap on your web
site. Is there a planned timeline for the various releases? I am anxiously
waiting for some of the features coming in 2.0. Specifically, issue 421 on
the bug tracking list. My users never close their review requests without
thanks.
1. vhost: I'll have a play and see if I can fix it, if so I'll send
you a patch.
2. Lucene: I thought it had python bindings already, but I can't find
much info on the web. I may have a look at converting the perl or php
bindings to python when I have some time.
3.egg cache, I used the
On Aug 4, 9:27 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:58 AM, gbjbaanb andy.bolstri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone.
I'm a very new user of ReviewBoard, I've just set it up, and as you
asked for information on how I intend to use it, and
Hello everybody,
since upgrading from 1.0rc2 to 1.0.1 I have trouble posting reviews to
RB using a custom post-review implementation. The problem is that the
JSON response does not contain too many error details, just:
{fields: {path: [substring not found]}, stat: fail, err:
{msg: One or more
Hi,
I wonder how reviewboard fetches file versions from ClearCase. Now I
have strange error from /api/json/reviewrequests/74/diff/new/:
{fields: {path: [cat: cat: /usr/cc_storage/unix_STREAM/.../
myjava.sql@@/main/STREAM/2: No such file or directory\n]}, stat:
fail, err: {msg: One or more fields
Hi Isaac,
There's on up-to-date schedules available. We don't have a timeline for 2.0
yet, and are still not 100% sure whta's going to make it into 2.0 and what's
going to go into a future release.
A rough timeline is as follows:
* Review Board 1.1 will enter beta cycle probably in about 2
Glad you got it working!
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.review-board.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Geetanjali geetanjali...@gmail.com wrote:
I could finally resolve the issue and get RB running :)
I think the person who contributed ClearCase support on the server expected
that the repository would be locally checked out with the path given. We'll
certainly take a patch to use cleartool to fix this.
We don't have access to ClearCase, so we can't do a lot of testing
ourselves.
Christian
--
Hello Christian,
On Wednesday 12 August 2009 22:25:03 Christian Hammond wrote:
There's another thread on this problem as well. Are you using ClearCase?
no, this happens with a proprietary SCM, for which I added support to RB and
post-review. So, I cannot rule out that my scm implementation is
Given that this error has been seen on both yours and ClearCase, it's
possible it's somewhere internal to Review Board.
Try this... Edit reviewboard/webapi/json.py, scroll down to the new_diff
function, and locate the except Exception, e: line.
Remove that whole block for that exception
It sounds like it's actually using the ClearCase SCM instead of your own.
Are you sure your repository entry is still mapping to your custom SCM?
In 1.0, we accidentally left out the database entry for the ClearCase SCM,
and added it back. When you did the rb-site upgrade, it probably replaced
Hi Eduardo,
My biggest concern at this point is adding another dependency, especially
one that isn't pure-Python and easy_install'able. We have a lot of
dependencies today, some optional, some required. Those that are required
and pure Python are easy. We can just add them to Review Board's
Hi,
We're evaluating Review Board and we're having trouble using post-review
with git repositories. Basically, we keep getting an error that looks like
this:
HTTP POSTing to http://reviews.ninginc.com/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
{'repository_path': 'test-bazel', 'submit_as': 'davidf'}
Error
More:
I traced the source of that parameter to get_original_file() in
diffutils.py. When I bypass the cache lookup and just return the
result of the fetch_file() sub-function I can display diffs properly,
although response is very slow as expected. Any ideas where I should
look to determine
Hi,
It's possible that when you use the cache function, it's returning
cached data from some older, broken attempt. If you reenable the
caching and then fully clear the cache and try again, does it work?
Christian
On Wednesday, August 12, 2009, schuijo schu...@gmail.com wrote:
More:
I
Christian,
Thank you for your answer! I'll try to fix it. I think fix is easy,
Michael.
On 13 авг, 00:34, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote:
I think the person who contributed ClearCase support on the server expected
that the repository would be locally checked out with the path
Updates:
Labels: -Milestone-Extensions Milestone-Release1.1
Comment #6 on issue 421 by chipx86: Enhancement request: nag owners about
stale review requests
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=421
This actually just needs to be implemented as a management command and
Status: Accepted
Owner: trowbrds
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 1271 by trowbrds: Need to add copyright headers MIT license
text to source files
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=1271
For all source files, we need to add copyright headers and the text of
Comment #7 on issue 421 by jefflamb: Enhancement request: nag owners about
stale review requests
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=421
I've created a standalone python script that does this and just uses the
API URLs to figure everything out. It currently
nags you if
20 matches
Mail list logo
