RE: post-review - dis-contiguous revisions

2011-02-09 Thread Tim
Another option would be to create story branches in SVN then migrate back to
trunk at story completion. This way you can review a story branch using a
range and not be polluted with trunk checkins or other branches.

 

This would of course be a philosophy shift in your org and we all know how
programmers enjoy change J

 

Tim

 

From: reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewboard@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Christian Hammond
Sent: February-09-11 2:24 AM
To: reviewboard@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: post-review - dis-contiguous revisions

 

Hi Martin.

You can't, really. You will have to have a review request per consecutive
range. It doesn't really make sense otherwise, since we have to literally
apply those changes and then show what happened between the two ends of the
range. Having holes in that range doesn't mean anything useful.

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com



On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:17 PM, mmacrobert mmacrob...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm trialling Reviewboard for my organisation and my workgroup. I've
successfully used post-review to create review-requests on my
reviewboard installation on Win32 and integrating with SVN.

My team follows a pattern of numerous small checkins for completion of
a story. Even for a small team this leads to dis-contiguous collection
of revision numbers for a given story, so the --revision-range=
parameter may be inappropriate for the task.

How can I use post-review to generate a review-request based upon a
discontiguous collection of review numbers?

Thanks in advance.

Martin

--
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
mailto:reviewboard%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

-- 
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

rb-site upgrade errors

2011-02-09 Thread Dave Hocker
I just upgraded our site to 1.5.3. During the preceding upgrade to
1.5.1 I started to see the following errors running the rb-site
upgrade command (and they appeared during 1.5.3 upgrade). I have
noticed that as far back as June of last year others have encountered
the same error messages.

Those that encountered the error claimed that they resolved it by
switching from memcached to python_memcached bindings. I have
python_memcached installed (it shows in the dist-packages directory).

Can anyone tell me exactly what I need to do to switch to python-
memcached bindings?

rb-site upgrad /var/www/oursite

Rebuilding directory structure
Updating database. This may take a while.
[NOTICE@1297265131.666919] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265131.710948] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265131.744787] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265131.790178] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265131.833536] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265131.871327] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265131.926428] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265131.967907] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265132.033274] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265132.170754] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265132.221988] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
[NOTICE@1297265132.275392] mcm_storage_cmd():3339: unable to store
value: add
No fixtures found.
No evolution required.
Upgrade complete.

Thanks!

Dave Hocker [dh]
Developement Lead
Peachtree RD
1715 North Brown Road
Lawrenceville, GA 30043
Tel: 770-931-7334
david.hoc...@sage.com

-- 
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: RBTools 0.3.1 and Review Board 1.5.3 released

2011-02-09 Thread Gilles Moris
On Monday 07 February 2011 09:49:31 pm Stephen Gallagher wrote:
 I've built ReviewBoard 1.5.3 for Fedora and EPEL:
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-1.fc14
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-1.el5
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-1.el6

Your patch release goes from 21 for ReviewBoard-1.5.2-21.el5 to 1 for 1.5.3.
Is this normal ?

Regards.
Gilles.

-- 
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: RBTools 0.3.1 and Review Board 1.5.3 released

2011-02-09 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On 02/09/2011 04:47 PM, Gilles Moris wrote:
 On Monday 07 February 2011 09:49:31 pm Stephen Gallagher wrote:
 I've built ReviewBoard 1.5.3 for Fedora and EPEL:
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-1.fc14
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-1.el5
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-1.el6
 Your patch release goes from 21 for ReviewBoard-1.5.2-21.el5 to 1 for 1.5.3.
 Is this normal ?
It doesn't make a difference. As long as the version number is higher,
the release number can be lower.

It's more common to reset the release number for each new tarball
release, that way it's clear how many patch releases we've done atop a
particular tarball.

I had been using an older convention where we always bumped the release
number, but that's no longer the recommended approach.

-- 
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


unable to save seach index path

2011-02-09 Thread Henry Yei
After upgrading from 1.5.2 to 1.5.3, I am unable to save the path of
the search index file. Has anyone else hit this problem, or is
specific to my configuration?

The path validation seems to work, but after the path is saved, the
path  does not appear in the Admin UI under the Settings-General
section and that field is blank.

The command rb-site manage /var/www/reviewboard index -- --full throws
an exception which seems to show that there is no value saved in the
variable store_dir which is initialized by that search_index_file
variable:


sh-4.1$ rb-site manage /var/www/reviewboard/ index -- --full
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File /usr/local/bin/rb-site, line 9, in module
load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==1.5.3', 'console_scripts', 'rb-
site')()
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-
py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1611, in main
 
command.run()
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-
py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1545, in run
site.run_manage_command(args[0],
args[1:])
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-
py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 397, in
run_manage_command
execute_manager(reviewboard.settings, [__file__, cmd] +
params)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
django/core/management/__init__.py, line 438, in execute_manager
 
utility.execute()
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
django/core/management/__init__.py, line 379, in execute
 
self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
django/core/management/base.py, line 191, in run_from_argv
self.execute(*args,
**options.__dict__)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
django/core/management/base.py, line 220, in execute
output = self.handle(*args,
**options)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
django/core/management/base.py, line 351, in handle
return
self.handle_noargs(**options)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-
py2.6.egg/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py, line 55,
in
handle_noargs
if not
os.path.exists(store_dir):
  File /usr/lib/python2.6/genericpath.py, line 18, in
exists
st =
os.stat(path)
TypeError: coercing to Unicode: need string or buffer, NoneType
found

I may have screwed something up when I forgot to do an rb-site
upgrade  until after a full day of use when I updated the ReviewBoard
installation via easy_install.

-- 
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: unable to save seach index path

2011-02-09 Thread Christian Hammond
Hi Henry,

I doubt you screwed anything up by not doing rb-site upgrade. It's likely a
flaw in the new validation logic. I'll see if I can work around this and get
you a patch tonight.

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com


On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Henry Yei henry@gmail.com wrote:

 After upgrading from 1.5.2 to 1.5.3, I am unable to save the path of
 the search index file. Has anyone else hit this problem, or is
 specific to my configuration?

 The path validation seems to work, but after the path is saved, the
 path  does not appear in the Admin UI under the Settings-General
 section and that field is blank.

 The command rb-site manage /var/www/reviewboard index -- --full throws
 an exception which seems to show that there is no value saved in the
 variable store_dir which is initialized by that search_index_file
 variable:


 sh-4.1$ rb-site manage /var/www/reviewboard/ index -- --full
 Traceback (most recent call last):
  File /usr/local/bin/rb-site, line 9, in module
load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==1.5.3', 'console_scripts', 'rb-
 site')()
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-
 py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1611, in main

 command.run()
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-
 py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1545, in run
site.run_manage_command(args[0],
 args[1:])
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-
 py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 397, in
 run_manage_command
execute_manager(reviewboard.settings, [__file__, cmd] +
 params)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
 django/core/management/__init__.py, line 438, in execute_manager

 utility.execute()
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
 django/core/management/__init__.py, line 379, in execute

 self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
 django/core/management/base.py, line 191, in run_from_argv
self.execute(*args,
 **options.__dict__)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
 django/core/management/base.py, line 220, in execute
output = self.handle(*args,
 **options)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.2.4-py2.6.egg/
 django/core/management/base.py, line 351, in handle
return
 self.handle_noargs(**options)
  File /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.3-
 py2.6.egg/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py, line 55,
 in
 handle_noargs
if not
 os.path.exists(store_dir):
  File /usr/lib/python2.6/genericpath.py, line 18, in
 exists
st =
 os.stat(path)
 TypeError: coercing to Unicode: need string or buffer, NoneType
 found

 I may have screwed something up when I forgot to do an rb-site
 upgrade  until after a full day of use when I updated the ReviewBoard
 installation via easy_install.

 --
 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

-- 
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: post-review - dis-contiguous revisions

2011-02-09 Thread mmacrobert
Thanks Tim. This idea has some merit since it permits small checkins
while submitting a story as a finished chunk. This may be an
appropriate practice for some of the larger stories that are actively
in development anyway.

I'll talk with my team.

Cheers,
M



On Feb 9, 9:17 pm, Tim tim.pi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Another option would be to create story branches in SVN then migrate back to
 trunk at story completion. This way you can review a story branch using a
 range and not be polluted with trunk checkins or other branches.

 This would of course be a philosophy shift in your org and we all know how
 programmers enjoy change J

 Tim

 From: reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewboard@googlegroups.com] On
 Behalf Of Christian Hammond
 Sent: February-09-11 2:24 AM
 To: reviewboard@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: post-review - dis-contiguous revisions

 Hi Martin.

 You can't, really. You will have to have a review request per consecutive
 range. It doesn't really make sense otherwise, since we have to literally
 apply those changes and then show what happened between the two ends of the
 range. Having holes in that range doesn't mean anything useful.

 Christian

 --
 Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
 Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org
 VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com

 On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:17 PM, mmacrobert mmacrob...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm trialling Reviewboard for my organisation and my workgroup. I've
 successfully used post-review to create review-requests on my
 reviewboard installation on Win32 and integrating with SVN.

 My team follows a pattern of numerous small checkins for completion of
 a story. Even for a small team this leads to dis-contiguous collection
 of revision numbers for a given story, so the --revision-range=
 parameter may be inappropriate for the task.

 How can I use post-review to generate a review-request based upon a
 discontiguous collection of review numbers?

 Thanks in advance.

 Martin

 --
 Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today 
 athttp://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.com
 mailto:reviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 For more options, visit this group 
 athttp://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en

 --
 Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today 
 athttp://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.com
 For more options, visit this group 
 athttp://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: Issue 1976 in reviewboard: Error when trying to update a review

2011-02-09 Thread reviewboard

Updates:
Labels: -Priority-Medium Priority-Critical

Comment #3 on issue 1976 by chip...@gmail.com: Error when trying to update  
a review

http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=1976

Committed a workaround in RBTools  
(5d9fa34d63c12d54ffeb8cf03cdd7e7b878474d4). I'll be doing a release shortly.


The actual API fix in Review Board will be in a 1.5.3 release, but that  
won't be out immediately. This shouldn't affect you if you upgrade RBTools  
though.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
reviewboard-issues group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues?hl=en.



Issue 1978 in reviewboard: diff support for Perforce moved files (p4 move)

2011-02-09 Thread reviewboard

Status: New
Owner: 
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium

New issue 1978 by mattginz...@gmail.com: diff support for Perforce moved  
files (p4 move)

http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=1978

*NOTE: If you have a patch, please submit it to
http://reviews.reviewboard.org/


What version are you running?

1.0.9

What's the URL of the page this enhancement relates to, if any?

reviewboard.host.server/r/123456/diff

Describe the enhancement and the motivation for it.

In release 2009.1 or thereabouts, Perforce added a first-class move  
operation, improving on the old integ-and-delete-and-edit way of moving  
files. Among other improvements, it can handle cases where you need to edit  
a file while moving it in the same change, and diff works reasonably for  
such files.


However, reviewboard diffs still show the file as entirely deleted, and  
entirely added, with none of the nice color highlighting for the regions  
that did/did not actually change.


What operating system are you using? What browser?

OS X 10.6, Chrome 9.

Please provide any additional information below.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
reviewboard-issues group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues?hl=en.



Re: Issue 1978 in reviewboard: diff support for Perforce moved files (p4 move)

2011-02-09 Thread reviewboard

Updates:
Status: Confirmed
Labels: Component-DiffParser Component-DiffViewer

Comment #1 on issue 1978 by chip...@gmail.com: diff support for Perforce  
moved files (p4 move)

http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=1978

This is something I'd like to do at some point.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
reviewboard-issues group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues?hl=en.