RE: Why does a Git local clone need to be kept in sync?

[Dunnigan, Terrence J]

For what it’s worth my group transitioned from GitWeb to cgit a couple of years 
ago. The performance increase was dramatic. I imagine there are other 
git-to-http options out there as well.

Terry

From: reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewboard@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of David Trowbridge
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:10 PM
To: reviewboard
Subject: Re: Why does a Git local clone need to be kept in sync?

Review Board uses the repository to fetch the "original" version of the files 
for each change in order to construct the side-by-side view (since the diffs 
that are uploaded are just unified diffs with limited context).

Updating every 5 minutes is likely to work almost all the time, but if someone 
were to push a commit and then immediately post a review request for a change 
based on that commit, it might fail because it thinks the parent revision 
doesn't exist. For this reason many people choose to run something like GitWeb 
(or the new rb-gateway) on the same server as the canonical repository, which 
will never be out of sync. Unfortunately if Review Board is on a separate 
server from your git repository, it does require either the local clone or some 
API frontend because git's remote protocol does not allow fetching individual 
files.

-David

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM John Borries 
> wrote:
On the reviewboard site it says "In order to work with Review Board, a local 
clone needs to be kept in sync regularly. It should either have direct access 
to a central Git server, or it needs to be updated on every commit to the 
central Git server."

My question is why? What features will break if the git repo is out of date?

I'm in the process of setting up ReviewBoard and I have a cron job that does a 
git pull on all the Git repos every 5 minutes. Is that sufficient or do I need 
to update on each commit?


https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/configuration/repositories/#local-clone
--
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.
--
-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.

-- 
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: Upgrading from 1.6.8 to 2.x

[Christian Hammond]

Hi Michael,

Sounds like some state got messed up on your end, too.

Can you find the script I had Risha run (the one with the Version import)?
Any other info you can provide that we went through earlier on the thread
would also help.

Basically... That KeyError means you have state missing that really should
be there. The core issue needs to be diagnosed and fixed.

What version of Django Evolution are you running?

Christian


On Thursday, March 10, 2016, Michael Lund 
wrote:

> Is there a straightforward way to determine the location of the offending
> key?
>
> I wonder whether I can circumvent some issues by upgrading incrementally
> to intermediate versions of ReviewBoard -- I'm taking a pretty big leap.  I
> have installed via easy_install, which has of course taken the latest
> version.  How can I "tune down" the installed version of ReviewBoard via
> easy_install, and can you recommend any intermediate version?  This doesn't
> work when executed as root:  easy_install ReviewBoard==1.7.22.
>
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1:31:11 PM UTC-7, Michael Lund wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Christian --
>>
>> I am encountering an error similar to the one described in this posting.
>> This posting is the only one I can find on the Internet dealing with the
>> error -- 'KeyError: u'FileDiffData'.  I hope it is alright to append, and
>> if not, I am happy to open a new thread.
>>
>> I am moving from ReviewBoard version 1.6.4.1 to  2.5.3.  There are no
>> out-of-space issues.  I have followed Risha's procedure, including
>> migrating all tables to InnoDB.  I ran
>>
>> rb-site manage . . . syncdb
>>
>> then
>>
>> rb-site upgrade
>>
>> The result is shown below.  I do know that at some point in the past,
>> this database was running on SQLite and was migrated to MySQL after a fair
>> amount of difficulty.  I don't dismiss the possibility that this error
>> might be due to leftovers from that series of events.
>>
>> Please let me know what diagnostic information I can provide.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Here is the output:
>>
>> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard.quantum.com
>> Rebuilding directory structure
>> Updating database. This may take a while.
>>
>> The log output below, including warnings and errors,
>> can be ignored unless upgrade fails.
>>
>> --  --
>> Creating tables ...
>> There are unapplied evolutions for auth.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for contenttypes.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for accounts.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for attachments.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for changedescs.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for reviews.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for scmtools.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for site.
>> Project signature has changed - an evolution is required
>> Installing custom SQL ...
>> Installing indexes ...
>> Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
>> ERROR:root:Unexpected error: u'FileDiffData'
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>> line 65, in handle
>> self.evolve(*app_labels, **options)
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>> line 125, in evolve
>> sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app))
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>> line 164, in evolve_app
>> app_mutator.run_mutations(mutations)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py",
>> line 279, in run_mutations
>> self.run_mutation(mutation)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py",
>> line 268, in run_mutation
>> model_mutator.run_mutation(mutation)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py",
>> line 165, in run_mutation
>> mutation.mutate(self, self.create_model())
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutations.py",
>> line 446, in mutate
>> self.add_column(mutator, model)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutations.py",
>> line 450, in add_column
>> self.field_type, self.field_attrs, model)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutations.py",
>> line 37, in create_field
>> related_model_sig = proj_sig[related_app_name][related_model_name]
>> KeyError: u'FileDiffData'
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in 
>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.3', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.3-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 1922, in main
>> command.run()
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.3-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 1725, in run
>> site.migrate_database()
>>   File
>> 

Re: Upgrading from 1.6.8 to 2.x

[Risha Chheda]

You can install any version of Reviewboard using easy_install. Look at the
documentation here:
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/installation/development-releases/#installing-development-releases

For example to install Version 1.6:

easy_install -f
http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.6/ -U
ReviewBoard


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Michael Lund 
wrote:

> Is there a straightforward way to determine the location of the offending
> key?
>
> I wonder whether I can circumvent some issues by upgrading incrementally
> to intermediate versions of ReviewBoard -- I'm taking a pretty big leap.  I
> have installed via easy_install, which has of course taken the latest
> version.  How can I "tune down" the installed version of ReviewBoard via
> easy_install, and can you recommend any intermediate version?  This doesn't
> work when executed as root:  easy_install ReviewBoard==1.7.22.
>
>
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1:31:11 PM UTC-7, Michael Lund wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Christian --
>>
>> I am encountering an error similar to the one described in this posting.
>> This posting is the only one I can find on the Internet dealing with the
>> error -- 'KeyError: u'FileDiffData'.  I hope it is alright to append, and
>> if not, I am happy to open a new thread.
>>
>> I am moving from ReviewBoard version 1.6.4.1 to  2.5.3.  There are no
>> out-of-space issues.  I have followed Risha's procedure, including
>> migrating all tables to InnoDB.  I ran
>>
>> rb-site manage . . . syncdb
>>
>> then
>>
>> rb-site upgrade
>>
>> The result is shown below.  I do know that at some point in the past,
>> this database was running on SQLite and was migrated to MySQL after a fair
>> amount of difficulty.  I don't dismiss the possibility that this error
>> might be due to leftovers from that series of events.
>>
>> Please let me know what diagnostic information I can provide.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Here is the output:
>>
>> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard.quantum.com
>> Rebuilding directory structure
>> Updating database. This may take a while.
>>
>> The log output below, including warnings and errors,
>> can be ignored unless upgrade fails.
>>
>> --  --
>> Creating tables ...
>> There are unapplied evolutions for auth.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for contenttypes.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for accounts.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for attachments.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for changedescs.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for reviews.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for scmtools.
>> There are unapplied evolutions for site.
>> Project signature has changed - an evolution is required
>> Installing custom SQL ...
>> Installing indexes ...
>> Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
>> ERROR:root:Unexpected error: u'FileDiffData'
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>> line 65, in handle
>> self.evolve(*app_labels, **options)
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>> line 125, in evolve
>> sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app))
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>> line 164, in evolve_app
>> app_mutator.run_mutations(mutations)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py",
>> line 279, in run_mutations
>> self.run_mutation(mutation)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py",
>> line 268, in run_mutation
>> model_mutator.run_mutation(mutation)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py",
>> line 165, in run_mutation
>> mutation.mutate(self, self.create_model())
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutations.py",
>> line 446, in mutate
>> self.add_column(mutator, model)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutations.py",
>> line 450, in add_column
>> self.field_type, self.field_attrs, model)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutations.py",
>> line 37, in create_field
>> related_model_sig = proj_sig[related_app_name][related_model_name]
>> KeyError: u'FileDiffData'
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in 
>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.3', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.3-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 1922, in main
>> command.run()
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.3-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 1725, in run
>> site.migrate_database()
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.3-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 452, in migrate_database
>> 

Re: Why does a Git local clone need to be kept in sync?

[David Trowbridge]

John,

rb-gateway has not had an official release, but there are a few people who
have built it and are running it. It's designed to be run on the same
server as your central git repository, so it doesn't use a clone at
all--it's therefore equivalent to how people use gitweb right now, but it
has a much simpler install and a smaller surface area.

-David

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:42 PM John Borries  wrote:

> Thanks for the quick reply David, that helps a lot.
>
> Is rb-gateway released yet? I can't find a lot of info about it yet. Will
> it handle this problem of keeping the git repo's up to date? I could
> imagine if there is a service between ReviewBoard and the Git repo, when rb
> asks rb-gateway for a file for a diff, rb-gateway could first fetch the
> latest file from the central git server.
>
>
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:09:46 PM UTC-8, David Trowbridge wrote:
>
>> Review Board uses the repository to fetch the "original" version of the
>> files for each change in order to construct the side-by-side view (since
>> the diffs that are uploaded are just unified diffs with limited context).
>>
>> Updating every 5 minutes is likely to work almost all the time, but if
>> someone were to push a commit and then immediately post a review request
>> for a change based on that commit, it might fail because it thinks the
>> parent revision doesn't exist. For this reason many people choose to run
>> something like GitWeb (or the new rb-gateway) on the same server as the
>> canonical repository, which will never be out of sync. Unfortunately if
>> Review Board is on a separate server from your git repository, it does
>> require either the local clone or some API frontend because git's remote
>> protocol does not allow fetching individual files.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM John Borries  wrote:
>>
> On the reviewboard site it says "In order to work with Review Board, a
>>> local clone needs to be kept in sync regularly. It should either have
>>> direct access to a central Git server, or it needs to be updated on every
>>> commit to the central Git server."
>>>
>>> My question is why? What features will break if the git repo is out of
>>> date?
>>>
>>> I'm in the process of setting up ReviewBoard and I have a cron job that
>>> does a git pull on all the Git repos every 5 minutes. Is that sufficient or
>>> do I need to update on each commit?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/configuration/repositories/#local-clone
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>> --
>> -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.
>
-- 
-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.

Re: Upgrading from 1.6.8 to 2.x

[Michael Lund]

Is there a straightforward way to determine the location of the offending 
key?

I wonder whether I can circumvent some issues by upgrading incrementally to 
intermediate versions of ReviewBoard -- I'm taking a pretty big leap.  I 
have installed via easy_install, which has of course taken the latest 
version.  How can I "tune down" the installed version of ReviewBoard via 
easy_install, and can you recommend any intermediate version?  This doesn't 
work when executed as root:  easy_install ReviewBoard==1.7.22.

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1:31:11 PM UTC-7, Michael Lund wrote:
>
> Hi, Christian --
>
> I am encountering an error similar to the one described in this posting. 
>  This posting is the only one I can find on the Internet dealing with the 
> error -- 'KeyError: u'FileDiffData'.  I hope it is alright to append, and 
> if not, I am happy to open a new thread.
>
> I am moving from ReviewBoard version 1.6.4.1 to  2.5.3.  There are no 
> out-of-space issues.  I have followed Risha's procedure, including 
> migrating all tables to InnoDB.  I ran 
>
> rb-site manage . . . syncdb
>
> then
>
> rb-site upgrade
>
> The result is shown below.  I do know that at some point in the past, this 
> database was running on SQLite and was migrated to MySQL after a fair 
> amount of difficulty.  I don't dismiss the possibility that this error 
> might be due to leftovers from that series of events.
>
> Please let me know what diagnostic information I can provide.
>
>
> Mike
>
> Here is the output:
>
> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard.quantum.com
> Rebuilding directory structure
> Updating database. This may take a while.
>
> The log output below, including warnings and errors,
> can be ignored unless upgrade fails.
>
> --  --
> Creating tables ...
> There are unapplied evolutions for auth.
> There are unapplied evolutions for contenttypes.
> There are unapplied evolutions for accounts.
> There are unapplied evolutions for attachments.
> There are unapplied evolutions for changedescs.
> There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer.
> There are unapplied evolutions for reviews.
> There are unapplied evolutions for scmtools.
> There are unapplied evolutions for site.
> Project signature has changed - an evolution is required
> Installing custom SQL ...
> Installing indexes ...
> Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
> ERROR:root:Unexpected error: u'FileDiffData'
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File 
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>  
> line 65, in handle
> self.evolve(*app_labels, **options)
>   File 
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>  
> line 125, in evolve
> sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app))
>   File 
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>  
> line 164, in evolve_app
> app_mutator.run_mutations(mutations)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py", 
> line 279, in run_mutations
> self.run_mutation(mutation)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py", 
> line 268, in run_mutation
> model_mutator.run_mutation(mutation)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py", 
> line 165, in run_mutation
> mutation.mutate(self, self.create_model())
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutations.py", 
> line 446, in mutate
> self.add_column(mutator, model)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutations.py", 
> line 450, in add_column
> self.field_type, self.field_attrs, model)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutations.py", 
> line 37, in create_field
> related_model_sig = proj_sig[related_app_name][related_model_name]
> KeyError: u'FileDiffData'
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in 
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.3', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
>   File 
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.3-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>  
> line 1922, in main
> command.run()
>   File 
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.3-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>  
> line 1725, in run
> site.migrate_database()
>   File 
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.3-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>  
> line 452, in migrate_database
> self.run_manage_command("evolve", ["--noinput", "--execute"])
>   File 
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.3-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>  
> line 676, in run_manage_command
> execute_from_command_line([__file__, cmd] + params)
>   File 
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 
> 399, in execute_from_command_line
> utility.execute()
>   File 
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", 

Re: Why does a Git local clone need to be kept in sync?

[John Borries]

Thanks for the quick reply David, that helps a lot.

Is rb-gateway released yet? I can't find a lot of info about it yet. Will 
it handle this problem of keeping the git repo's up to date? I could 
imagine if there is a service between ReviewBoard and the Git repo, when rb 
asks rb-gateway for a file for a diff, rb-gateway could first fetch the 
latest file from the central git server. 

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:09:46 PM UTC-8, David Trowbridge wrote:
>
> Review Board uses the repository to fetch the "original" version of the 
> files for each change in order to construct the side-by-side view (since 
> the diffs that are uploaded are just unified diffs with limited context).
>
> Updating every 5 minutes is likely to work almost all the time, but if 
> someone were to push a commit and then immediately post a review request 
> for a change based on that commit, it might fail because it thinks the 
> parent revision doesn't exist. For this reason many people choose to run 
> something like GitWeb (or the new rb-gateway) on the same server as the 
> canonical repository, which will never be out of sync. Unfortunately if 
> Review Board is on a separate server from your git repository, it does 
> require either the local clone or some API frontend because git's remote 
> protocol does not allow fetching individual files.
>
> -David
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM John Borries  > wrote:
>
>> On the reviewboard site it says "In order to work with Review Board, a 
>> local clone needs to be kept in sync regularly. It should either have 
>> direct access to a central Git server, or it needs to be updated on every 
>> commit to the central Git server."
>>
>> My question is why? What features will break if the git repo is out of 
>> date?
>>
>> I'm in the process of setting up ReviewBoard and I have a cron job that 
>> does a git pull on all the Git repos every 5 minutes. Is that sufficient or 
>> do I need to update on each commit?
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/configuration/repositories/#local-clone
>>
>> -- 
>> 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.
>>
> -- 
> -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.

Re: Why does a Git local clone need to be kept in sync?

[David Trowbridge]

Review Board uses the repository to fetch the "original" version of the
files for each change in order to construct the side-by-side view (since
the diffs that are uploaded are just unified diffs with limited context).

Updating every 5 minutes is likely to work almost all the time, but if
someone were to push a commit and then immediately post a review request
for a change based on that commit, it might fail because it thinks the
parent revision doesn't exist. For this reason many people choose to run
something like GitWeb (or the new rb-gateway) on the same server as the
canonical repository, which will never be out of sync. Unfortunately if
Review Board is on a separate server from your git repository, it does
require either the local clone or some API frontend because git's remote
protocol does not allow fetching individual files.

-David

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM John Borries  wrote:

> On the reviewboard site it says "In order to work with Review Board, a
> local clone needs to be kept in sync regularly. It should either have
> direct access to a central Git server, or it needs to be updated on every
> commit to the central Git server."
>
> My question is why? What features will break if the git repo is out of
> date?
>
> I'm in the process of setting up ReviewBoard and I have a cron job that
> does a git pull on all the Git repos every 5 minutes. Is that sufficient or
> do I need to update on each commit?
>
>
>
> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/configuration/repositories/#local-clone
>
> --
> 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.
>
-- 
-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.

Why does a Git local clone need to be kept in sync?

[John Borries]

On the reviewboard site it says "In order to work with Review Board, a 
local clone needs to be kept in sync regularly. It should either have 
direct access to a central Git server, or it needs to be updated on every 
commit to the central Git server."

My question is why? What features will break if the git repo is out of date?

I'm in the process of setting up ReviewBoard and I have a cron job that 
does a git pull on all the Git repos every 5 minutes. Is that sufficient or 
do I need to update on each commit?


https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/configuration/repositories/#local-clone

-- 
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.

RBTools 0.7.4: rbt post --diff-only no longer works

[Steve]

I've noticed that the --diff-only option to rbt post is no longer working 
the way it used to with Perforce.  It may be trying to be too clever. If I 
create a review with this perforce change description:

Description:
   Bogus review request to test --diff-only option


Using

$ rbt post CL

I get a review request where both the title and description read: "Bogus 
review request to test --diff-only option".  That's good.  Then I modify 
the file and the change list description so the new change list description 
reads:


Description:
Bogus review request to test --diff-only option

   I'm adding this comment for Rev 2. Using --diff-only, this text 
should not appear in ReviewBoard


and do

$ rbt post --diff-only CL

When I look at the new review draft, the title remains the same (good), but 
the description field now says:


   "I'm adding this comment for Rev 2. Using --diff-only, this text should 
not appear in ReviewBoard"

which is not good.

Even worse is this case:

I edit the description field in Review Board to add aditional information 
directly. It now reads:

'''
Bogus review request to test --diff-only option

Someone reported a problem with 'rbt post --diff-only'  I'm using this 
bogus review request to test and see if this is broken. I expect this 
comment to remain after an update using --diff-only.
'''

Now I run

$ rbt post --diff-only CL

And my description in Review Board has been overwritten with the 
description in my perforce change list.

I searched for '--diff-only' in the bug tracker and didn't find anything, 
so I'm posting here to see if this is a known issue.

Thanks

--Steve

-- 
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.