hi Chris,
Now I have got the RB installed, and web server is up.
Meet strange issue in set up Performce repositories, in
Admin-Database-Add repository page, I have input as below:
Name as my specific name,
Hosting service as None Custom Repository,
Repository type as Perforce,
Path as our
Hi Gavin,
Thanks for the detailed info.
The fact that the LDAP setup isn't working shouldn't prevent Review Board from
showing you the option in the list, so that's unlikely to be it.
Try this on the server and see what happens:
$ python
import pkg_resources
Hi Jeff,
Do you use ticket-based auth for your Perforce server, or just standard
username/password auth?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:16 AM, xiuruli...@163.com wrote:
hi Chris,
Thanks for the responsitive and effective support! Our P4 server is based
on ticket auth, I have changed to use the ticket string as passwd, now can
move on. Thanks again!
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:16:38 PM UTC+8, xiuru...@163.com wrote:
hi Chris,
Now I have got the RB
Awesome, that was a huge help!
So the first time I ran the snippit below it gave me this:
import pkg_resources
list(pkg_resources.iter_entry_points('reviewboard.auth_backends'))
[]
To cut a long story short, we custom build packages for a lot of things and
unpack them to
On 01/16/2013 02:53 AM, Gav Main wrote:
Hi Christian,
I appreciate you replying so quickly. We have the RH supplied version
installed (python-ldap-2.3.10-1.el6.x86_64).
To give you a bit more information. We are looking to move from
ReviewBoard 1.6.5 - 1.6.15. I have setup a lab instance
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for working on the reviewboard 1.7 packages for Fedora 18.
Do you have plans for building a reviewboard 1.7 package for the EPEL repo?
Currently EPEL contains reviewboard 1.6.15.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9694
On Wed 16 Jan 2013 08:56:28 AM EST, p...@talk21.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for working on the reviewboard 1.7 packages for Fedora 18.
Do you have plans for building a reviewboard 1.7 package for the EPEL
repo? Currently EPEL contains reviewboard 1.6.15.
Thanks for answer by e-mails.
I've tried to add differing binary files of SDL TTCN suite with a friend.
And we've got a problem while checking diff in reviewboard server.
We send to review whole binary file and while reading it from DB we got it
in sets of 100 lines. Is there any easy way to
You'll need shell access to the server hosting your RB. I think the
workaround instructions are a bit off, so I'll give is a try with an
explanation.
The core issue is that the certificate needs to be confirmed, in my case
it's self-signed could be other reasons for needing this. If you can
We're going to have a release tonight that fixes the SSL confirmation screen.
It would have gone out last night, but I had some local setup issues to deal
with.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
I get about 1 of these per month, but I have 2 this week and it's getting
to be a real problem. Developers paste large amounts of text into the
Testing Done field, after which going to the main page for the review
yields this:
Something broke! (Error 500)
It appears
Hi Steve,
This breaks on the review request page because the Testing Done text is
being stored in a JSON structure along with other data for the Review
request updated sections. These sections do not show on the diff viewer.
Repairing this would require going into the database viewer in the
I have a 1.6 server staged for testing that I'm planning to roll out soon.
I'll import the latest database and see if the problem shows up there as
well.
As for
Tell developers not to paste so much :)
I thought it was the size of the text also, but I'm beginning to think it's
not. I've
It won't fix existing review requests. The data is truncated at write, so you
have to fix it manually, by hand. It will only prevent the problem for new
review requests.
It's certainly not the content. This is an old, very well known and tested bug.
The problem is that there's only so much
I just read this again more carefully:
Actually, the reason you're having this problem is that your release is
so old. If you upgrade, this shouldn't happen on newer review requests.
That sounds like even on the new server this particular review will be
broken, but new reviews should not end
Excellent - thanks Chris!
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:39:20 PM UTC-8, Christian Hammond wrote:
It won't fix existing review requests. The data is truncated at write, so
you have to fix it manually, by hand. It will only prevent the problem for
new review requests.
It's certainly not
Cheers for the pointer Stephen, I'll check it out. I welcome any solution
that makes life easier.
On 16 January 2013 20:30, Stephen Gallagher step...@gallagherhome.comwrote:
On 01/16/2013 02:53 AM, Gav Main wrote:
Hi Christian,
I appreciate you replying so quickly. We have the RH supplied
Hi everyone,
Review Board 1.7.2 is out. Lots of bug fixes and a few new features. See
the news post and release notes for more info.
http://www.reviewboard.org/news/2013/01/16/review-board-1-7-2-released/
We'll have a new RBTools out pretty soon with some nice improvements as
well.
Christian
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium
New issue 2867 by matthew@kitware.com: allow reporter to resolve issues
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2867
What version are you running?
RB 1.7.1
What's the URL of the page this enhancement relates to,
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium
New issue 2868 by matthew@kitware.com: allow closing issues when
updating request
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2868
What version are you running?
RB 1.7.1
What's the URL of the page this
Comment #3 on issue 2860 by chip...@gmail.com: GCC_4.2.0 version not found
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2860
If it's not showing up in the reviewboard.log, then we don't have any
additional logging that would help here.
It can occur at many points, though. The one
Comment #5 on issue 2713 by trowb...@gmail.com: Reviewer, not author,
should mark issues as resolved/reopened
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2713
Issue 2867 has been merged into this issue.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Updates:
Status: Duplicate
Mergedinto: 2713
Comment #1 on issue 2867 by trowb...@gmail.com: allow reporter to resolve
issues
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2867
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are
24 matches
Mail list logo
