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
