Review Board 2.0 RC 1 is released!
Hey everyone. 2.0 RC 1 is out! We're really close to the final 2.0, and are hoping to get a lot of eyes on this release. Please see the news post and release notes at: http://www.reviewboard.org/news/2014/03/06/review-board-2-0-rc-1-released/ Christian -- Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://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/groups/opt_out.
Re: The current directory does not contain a checkout... (problem posting from perforce)
Thanks David, that gets me going. On Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:03:45 PM UTC-8, David Trowbridge wrote: Greg, You're probably getting hit by case mismatches ( https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3221). We'll be fixing this for 0.5.8. -David On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Greg Dean gr...@familydean.netjavascript: wrote: Hi there, I've updated to 0.5.7 and I'm running from cygwin and I get the same result. Can rbt be run from cygwin? Here is what I get: $ rbt post -d -o 299074 DEBUG:root:Checking for a Subversion repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a Git repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a Mercurial repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a CVS repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a Perforce repository... DEBUG:root:Running: p4 info DEBUG:root:Checking for a Plastic repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a ClearCase repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a Bazaar repository... ERROR:root:The current directory does not contain a checkout from a supported source code repository. On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 1:14:16 PM UTC-8, Karl Nordstrom wrote: Thanks for the quick fix! 0.5.7 did it. Karl On Monday, 3 February 2014 13:50:03 UTC-8, Karl Nordstrom wrote: Okay, looking forward to getting the fix. Thanks, Karl On Monday, 3 February 2014 13:28:17 UTC-8, David Trowbridge wrote: Karl, It looks like we introduced a regression in 0.5.6 where it only will post from the client root. We'll get this sorted out asap. -David On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Karl Nordstrom north...@gmail.comwrote: I am attempting to generate a diff using rbt diff from a perforce workspace. I get the same error when I do rbt post. (Thank you for helping with the previous problem I was having, it appears to be resolved with RBTools 0.5.6.) My p4config is as follows: P4PORT=stork:1666 P4USER=knordstrom P4CLIENT=knordstrom_passenger The p4config appears to be setup correctly. I can do p4 diff from the commandline and generate a diff without errors. Unfortunately, this diff is not in a format that ReviewBoard understands. My .reviewboard rc file is as follows (just one line): REVIEWBOARD_URL = http://reviewboard/; I have tried the following on the commandline: rbt diff -d rbt diff -d 25012 (the latest changelist number) rbt post -d rbt post -d 25012 In all cases I get the same result: DEBUG:root:Checking for a Subversion repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a Git repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a Mercurial repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a CVS repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a Perforce repository... DEBUG:root:Running: p4 info DEBUG:root:Checking for a Plastic repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a ClearCase repository... DEBUG:root:Checking for a Bazaar repository... ERROR:root:The current directory does not contain a checkout from a supported source code repository. When I do p4 info it provides relevant information. I'm hesitant to post it here as it shows company specific information. Is there something that I need to do in the configuration? Is this something to do with the way that Perforce works? As far as I can tell, Perforce works on workspaces (a collection of files that are being edited) rather than directories. That said, I would have thought that RBTools could find it via p4 diff, which references p4config. Ideally, I want to post to reviewboard based on changed files rather than an already committed changelist, but right now any solution would be welcome. Does anyone have an example of how to configure RBTools to work with Perforce? I have searched all over and have not found any concrete examples. Thanks, Karl -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/ powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://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/groups/opt_out. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://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 javascript:. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at
SVN Branch - postcommit diff generation
Hi, I have setup Review Board for SVN Repo, and using post-commit workflow. Installation: Review Board 1.5.7 RBTools 0.5.7 I have a query w.r.t generating diff that is scoped to a specific branch (SVN path/subfolder). Scenario is as below: SVN Root: http://svnhost/svn Multiple SVN Branches: http://svnhost/svn/branch1 http://svnhost/svn/branch2 'rbt post' command takes the '--revision-range' parameter to specify the scope for the diff generation. As SVN maintains revision numbers at the Root level and not specific to each branch/subfolder, generated diff captures all changes across the branches. Is there a way to narrow down the scope by specifying path or branch? I don't seem to find any other parameters in the documentation which could facilitate this use case. Any insights or help in this regards is highly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Regards, Kalpana -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Status of mercurial+ssh support
Hi,
the Abort: repository .. is not local message is one you get when trying
to run local-only commands
on remote repositories, such as 'hg cat' or 'hg log'. Looking why I'm
getting similar failures as Jimmy
describes in his first email here, this is what hg.py is doing - calling
'hg cat' on a remote repo.
Here's the relevant debug log (adding the command debug to hg.py)
[ReviewBoard 1.7.22]:
2014-03-06 13:14:17,557 - DEBUG - - ['hg', '--noninteractive',
'--repository', u'ssh://USER@HOST/PATH_redacted', '--cwd',
u'ssh://USER@HOST/PATH_redacted', 'showconfig', 'ui.ssh']
2014-03-06 13:14:17,606 - DEBUG - - Using rbssh for mercurial:
2014-03-06 13:14:17,606 - DEBUG - - ['hg', '--noninteractive',
'--repository', u'ssh://USER@HOST/PATH_redacted', '--cwd',
u'ssh://USER@HOST/PATH_redacted', '--config', 'ui.ssh=rbssh', 'cat',
'--rev', 'REV_redacted', 'FILE_PATH_redacted']
References:
http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/FAQ#FAQ.2FCommonProblems.How_can_I_do_a_.22hg_log.22_of_a_remote_repository.3F
http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2008-July/019954.html
hnhn
On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 16:08:57 UTC+2, jimmy jiang wrote:
Hi, Christian,
For the above error of Abort: repository 'ssh://
hg@135.251.206.233/AONT_R2X_MS' is not local, i did below change for
this issue:
in ./reviewboard/scmtool/hg.py, calss HgClient, __init__(self, repoPath,
local_site),
change self.repo = hg.repository (hg_ui, path+repoPath)
to = self.repo = hg.peer (hg_ui, {}, path=repoPath)
After this, i got the same error point ('sshpeer' object has no attribute
'changectx'.) as before, it means the same error happen after i upgraded
mercurial from v2.2.2 to v2.6.1.
Thanks for your support.
BR
Jimmy
2013/5/31 jimmy jiang jimmy@gmail.com javascript:
Hi. Christian,
I updated the mercurial to latest v2.6.1. but new error happened,
It is Abort: repository 'ssh://hg@135.251.206.233/AONT_R2X_MS' is not
local , which is the earlier to the original error.
The reviewboard.log attached, please help to check, thanks.
BR
Jimmy.
--
Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
---
Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/
---
Happy user? Let us know at http://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/groups/opt_out.
Looking to talk to a few happy Review Board users
Hey everyone, As most of you know, we've been pretty busy getting Review Board 2.0 ready for a release. That's not all that we've been busy with, though. We've also been building up our business, Beanbaghttp://www.beanbaginc.com/, where we've been putting together RBCommons https://rbcommons.com/ (our Review Board SaaS) and Power Pack http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/(a commercial product that's providing a bunch of new enhancements to Review Board, such as document review, and soon reporting and smarter diff analysis). We have a lot we want to do in this coming year, both on the open source and commercial fronts. We want to talk directly to some of you about our plans, and get your thoughts and opinions. If you're an administrator and your company has been using Review Board for a while, I'd very much like to hear from you. Just shoot me an e-mail privately. I'm hoping to arrange for some one-on-ones over e-mail, online chat, or phone calls over the next few weeks. Also, if your company is happily using Review Board, and you're not on our Happy Users http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ list, we'd love to add you! Just let us know. Thanks, Christian -- Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://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/groups/opt_out.
Re: SVN Branch - postcommit diff generation
You can add a path on to the end of the command line. For example: rbt post --revision-range=123:456 branch1/ Note that this syntax will be changing significantly for the 0.6 release. After that release, the command would be: rbt post --include=branch/ 123:456 -David On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Kalpana Jalawadi kalpana.jalaw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have setup Review Board for SVN Repo, and using post-commit workflow. Installation: Review Board 1.5.7 RBTools 0.5.7 I have a query w.r.t generating diff that is scoped to a specific branch (SVN path/subfolder). Scenario is as below: SVN Root: http://svnhost/svn Multiple SVN Branches: http://svnhost/svn/branch1 http://svnhost/svn/branch2 'rbt post' command takes the '--revision-range' parameter to specify the scope for the diff generation. As SVN maintains revision numbers at the Root level and not specific to each branch/subfolder, generated diff captures all changes across the branches. Is there a way to narrow down the scope by specifying path or branch? I don't seem to find any other parameters in the documentation which could facilitate this use case. Any insights or help in this regards is highly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Regards, Kalpana -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://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/groups/opt_out. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://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/groups/opt_out.
Re: RB server upgrade from 1.6.1 to 1.7.4
Hi Christian, We're facing some pretty bad performance issues on our production system after we moved our application to a different vm with RHEL6.4. We notice that our performance issues occur especially when the log shows this: [Fri Mar 07 00:18:19 2014] [error] /opt/software/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pycrypto-2.6.1-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/Crypto/Util/number.py:57: PowmInsecureWarning: Not using mpz_powm_sec. You should rebuild using libgmp = 5 to avoid timing attack vulnerability. However, it is important to note that we've seen these warning issues for the last 1.5 years, so I doubt it has to do with it. Nonetheless, do you know what specific operations one could do to trigger this warning? I'm trying to see if I can reproduce the performance spikes. Thanks, Ze On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:22:49 AM UTC-8, Christian Hammond wrote: Hi Chuck, Sorry for failing to respond to the previous e-mail. Missed it. I haven't seen that particular warning before. It'll probably have a log entry any time pycrypto is imported. What distro/version are you using? Sounds like maybe it's an older one? You may need to hand-upgrade libgmp, I'm not sure. From your previous e-mail: Doing a site backup never hurts, but generally isn't important. Review Board won't delete any files. At most, it'd add some new directories and tell you to change permissions, but I don't think we've done that since 1.5. We have provided instructions on other sorts of manual updates that need to be made, though. We don't have any documentation right now on p4python's SSL support. This is only needed if you're using SSL-backed Perforce repositories. It's unfortunately not something we can automate well right now, but essentially, you'd have to install OpenSSL 1.0.1 on your distro and install its development package (I don't know if newer versions work -- hopefully other 1.0.x releases do). You'd then need to manually compile/install p4python. Yes, it's a pain, but it's something Perforce will need to make easier for us. From the e-mail you just posted while I was replying to this, you'd need to check the reviewboard.log file and see what error it's reporting before I can say what happened. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com javascript: Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:10 AM, chuck j cjerr...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Hi Christian, I would like to thank you for your response about upgrade. I went through with your comments and i was able to bring my server to 1.7.4. Also also want to bring to your notice regarding below warning i got after while upgrading my site. /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pycrypto-2.6-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/Crypto/Util/number.py:57: PowmInsecureWarning: Not using mpz_powm_sec. You should rebuild using libgmp = 5 to avoid timing attack vulnerability. How to resolve this? Do i need to build it libgmp again as message shows, will it make RB server report more issues. Thanks, -Chuck On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:58 PM, chuck j cjerr...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Thanks Christian for the response. Good to hear that upgrade is possible from 1.6.1 to 1.7.4 RB version, apart from the database backup do we need to take care of any thing else which will disturb our production setup and in case of any issue we should be able to go back to our original state, if you point us action item it would be really great. Few queries though 1. How does upgrade takes place, does it replace files by files ( I mean python scripts etc ) apart from db. 2. The Release note of 1.7.2 its been mentioned about below However, this requires that p4python is specially compiled with OpenSSL support, and that the system has development headers for OpenSSL 1.0.1. P4PythonInstaller doesn’t do this, so users who need this feature will currently have to compile p4python manually, providing the path to the SSL directory using --ssl Do we have any tech note for the above steps which end user needs to perform. Cheers, Chuck On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Christian Hammond chi...@chipx86.comjavascript: wrote: Hi Chuck, I always recommend backing up your database first, but you should be able to upgrade from 1.6.1 to 1.7.4 without any real problems. There is a bug that some people hit a while back in older versions that introduced some stale upgrade data in the database. I meant to get a final fix out in 1.7.4, but it slipped. If your 'rb-site upgrade' complains about fields that already exist or something, e-mail and I'll give you the solution. Otherwise, you shouldn't have any problems. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com javascript: Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - a href=http://www.vmware.com/; target=_ ... -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at
Performance Issues (Was Re: RB server upgrade from 1.6.1 to 1.7.4)
Hi Ze, Those warnings are probably unrelated. I want to get a better sense of the performance problems. First thing I want to check is that your server is properly accessing and using memcached. If you log into the admin UI, do you see any stats on memcached, and any keys stored in the cache? Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Ze Lin Xiao ilacknormal...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Christian, We're facing some pretty bad performance issues on our production system after we moved our application to a different vm with RHEL6.4. We notice that our performance issues occur especially when the log shows this: [Fri Mar 07 00:18:19 2014] [error] /opt/software/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pycrypto-2.6.1-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/Crypto/Util/number.py:57: PowmInsecureWarning: Not using mpz_powm_sec. You should rebuild using libgmp = 5 to avoid timing attack vulnerability. However, it is important to note that we've seen these warning issues for the last 1.5 years, so I doubt it has to do with it. Nonetheless, do you know what specific operations one could do to trigger this warning? I'm trying to see if I can reproduce the performance spikes. Thanks, Ze On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:22:49 AM UTC-8, Christian Hammond wrote: Hi Chuck, Sorry for failing to respond to the previous e-mail. Missed it. I haven't seen that particular warning before. It'll probably have a log entry any time pycrypto is imported. What distro/version are you using? Sounds like maybe it's an older one? You may need to hand-upgrade libgmp, I'm not sure. From your previous e-mail: Doing a site backup never hurts, but generally isn't important. Review Board won't delete any files. At most, it'd add some new directories and tell you to change permissions, but I don't think we've done that since 1.5. We have provided instructions on other sorts of manual updates that need to be made, though. We don't have any documentation right now on p4python's SSL support. This is only needed if you're using SSL-backed Perforce repositories. It's unfortunately not something we can automate well right now, but essentially, you'd have to install OpenSSL 1.0.1 on your distro and install its development package (I don't know if newer versions work -- hopefully other 1.0.x releases do). You'd then need to manually compile/install p4python. Yes, it's a pain, but it's something Perforce will need to make easier for us. From the e-mail you just posted while I was replying to this, you'd need to check the reviewboard.log file and see what error it's reporting before I can say what happened. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:10 AM, chuck j cjerr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Christian, I would like to thank you for your response about upgrade. I went through with your comments and i was able to bring my server to 1.7.4. Also also want to bring to your notice regarding below warning i got after while upgrading my site. /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pycrypto-2.6-py2.7- linux-x86_64.egg/Crypto/Util/number.py:57: PowmInsecureWarning: Not using mpz_powm_sec. You should rebuild using libgmp = 5 to avoid timing attack vulnerability. How to resolve this? Do i need to build it libgmp again as message shows, will it make RB server report more issues. Thanks, -Chuck On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:58 PM, chuck j cjerr...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Christian for the response. Good to hear that upgrade is possible from 1.6.1 to 1.7.4 RB version, apart from the database backup do we need to take care of any thing else which will disturb our production setup and in case of any issue we should be able to go back to our original state, if you point us action item it would be really great. Few queries though 1. How does upgrade takes place, does it replace files by files ( I mean python scripts etc ) apart from db. 2. The Release note of 1.7.2 its been mentioned about below However, this requires that p4python is specially compiled with OpenSSL support, and that the system has development headers for OpenSSL 1.0.1. P4PythonInstaller doesn’t do this, so users who need this feature will currently have to compile p4python manually, providing the path to the SSL directory using --ssl Do we have any tech note for the above steps which end user needs to perform. Cheers, Chuck On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Christian Hammond chi...@chipx86.comwrote: Hi Chuck, I always recommend backing up your database first, but you should be able to upgrade from 1.6.1 to 1.7.4 without any real problems. There is a bug that some people hit a while back in older versions that introduced some stale upgrade data in the database. I meant to get a
Re: Performance Issues (Was Re: RB server upgrade from 1.6.1 to 1.7.4)
Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, memcached is running. Here is what I see from the Admin Server Cache page I've got it running on two different vms, which I've obfuscated as VM1 and VM2 SERVER CACHE Cache backend: django.core.cache.backends.memcached.CacheClass vm1 Memory usage: 1.8 GB Keys in cache: 61079 of 257077 Cache hits: 5289571 of 5458860: 96% Cache misses: 169289 of 5458860: 3% Cache evictions: 139881 Cache traffic: 10.2 GB in, 27.9 GB out Uptime: 3683047 seconds vm2 Memory usage: 1.8 GB Keys in cache: 54978 of 401980 Cache hits: 5999634 of 6277198: 95% Cache misses: 277564 of 6277198: 4% Cache evictions: 307751 Cache traffic: 16.8 GB in, 26.2 GB out Uptime: 938019 seconds On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Hi Ze, Those warnings are probably unrelated. I want to get a better sense of the performance problems. First thing I want to check is that your server is properly accessing and using memcached. If you log into the admin UI, do you see any stats on memcached, and any keys stored in the cache? Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Ze Lin Xiao ilacknormal...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Christian, We're facing some pretty bad performance issues on our production system after we moved our application to a different vm with RHEL6.4. We notice that our performance issues occur especially when the log shows this: [Fri Mar 07 00:18:19 2014] [error] /opt/software/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pycrypto-2.6.1-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/Crypto/Util/number.py:57: PowmInsecureWarning: Not using mpz_powm_sec. You should rebuild using libgmp = 5 to avoid timing attack vulnerability. However, it is important to note that we've seen these warning issues for the last 1.5 years, so I doubt it has to do with it. Nonetheless, do you know what specific operations one could do to trigger this warning? I'm trying to see if I can reproduce the performance spikes. Thanks, Ze On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:22:49 AM UTC-8, Christian Hammond wrote: Hi Chuck, Sorry for failing to respond to the previous e-mail. Missed it. I haven't seen that particular warning before. It'll probably have a log entry any time pycrypto is imported. What distro/version are you using? Sounds like maybe it's an older one? You may need to hand-upgrade libgmp, I'm not sure. From your previous e-mail: Doing a site backup never hurts, but generally isn't important. Review Board won't delete any files. At most, it'd add some new directories and tell you to change permissions, but I don't think we've done that since 1.5. We have provided instructions on other sorts of manual updates that need to be made, though. We don't have any documentation right now on p4python's SSL support. This is only needed if you're using SSL-backed Perforce repositories. It's unfortunately not something we can automate well right now, but essentially, you'd have to install OpenSSL 1.0.1 on your distro and install its development package (I don't know if newer versions work -- hopefully other 1.0.x releases do). You'd then need to manually compile/install p4python. Yes, it's a pain, but it's something Perforce will need to make easier for us. From the e-mail you just posted while I was replying to this, you'd need to check the reviewboard.log file and see what error it's reporting before I can say what happened. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:10 AM, chuck j cjerr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Christian, I would like to thank you for your response about upgrade. I went through with your comments and i was able to bring my server to 1.7.4. Also also want to bring to your notice regarding below warning i got after while upgrading my site. /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pycrypto-2.6-py2.7- linux-x86_64.egg/Crypto/Util/number.py:57: PowmInsecureWarning: Not using mpz_powm_sec. You should rebuild using libgmp = 5 to avoid timing attack vulnerability. How to resolve this? Do i need to build it libgmp again as message shows, will it make RB server report more issues. Thanks, -Chuck On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:58 PM, chuck j cjerr...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Christian for the response. Good to hear that upgrade is possible from 1.6.1 to 1.7.4 RB version, apart from the database backup do we need to take care of any thing else which will disturb our production setup and in case of any issue we should be able to go back to our original state, if you point us action item it would be really great. Few queries though 1. How does upgrade takes place, does it replace files by files ( I mean python scripts etc ) apart from db. 2. The Release note of 1.7.2 its been mentioned
Re: Performance Issues (Was Re: RB server upgrade from 1.6.1 to 1.7.4)
Okay, well, I was hoping it'd be simple :) Can you give me some examples of operations that are very slow, and operations that remain fast? Or does everything basically slow to a grind? How do the Apache settings (worker vs prefork, and their config) compare between installs? Christian On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Ze Xiao ilacknormal...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, memcached is running. Here is what I see from the Admin Server Cache page I've got it running on two different vms, which I've obfuscated as VM1 and VM2 SERVER CACHE Cache backend: django.core.cache.backends.memcached.CacheClass vm1 Memory usage: 1.8 GB Keys in cache: 61079 of 257077 Cache hits: 5289571 of 5458860: 96% Cache misses: 169289 of 5458860: 3% Cache evictions: 139881 Cache traffic: 10.2 GB in, 27.9 GB out Uptime: 3683047 seconds vm2 Memory usage: 1.8 GB Keys in cache: 54978 of 401980 Cache hits: 5999634 of 6277198: 95% Cache misses: 277564 of 6277198: 4% Cache evictions: 307751 Cache traffic: 16.8 GB in, 26.2 GB out Uptime: 938019 seconds On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Hi Ze, Those warnings are probably unrelated. I want to get a better sense of the performance problems. First thing I want to check is that your server is properly accessing and using memcached. If you log into the admin UI, do you see any stats on memcached, and any keys stored in the cache? Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Ze Lin Xiao ilacknormal...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Christian, We're facing some pretty bad performance issues on our production system after we moved our application to a different vm with RHEL6.4. We notice that our performance issues occur especially when the log shows this: [Fri Mar 07 00:18:19 2014] [error] /opt/software/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pycrypto-2.6.1-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/Crypto/Util/number.py:57: PowmInsecureWarning: Not using mpz_powm_sec. You should rebuild using libgmp = 5 to avoid timing attack vulnerability. However, it is important to note that we've seen these warning issues for the last 1.5 years, so I doubt it has to do with it. Nonetheless, do you know what specific operations one could do to trigger this warning? I'm trying to see if I can reproduce the performance spikes. Thanks, Ze On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:22:49 AM UTC-8, Christian Hammond wrote: Hi Chuck, Sorry for failing to respond to the previous e-mail. Missed it. I haven't seen that particular warning before. It'll probably have a log entry any time pycrypto is imported. What distro/version are you using? Sounds like maybe it's an older one? You may need to hand-upgrade libgmp, I'm not sure. From your previous e-mail: Doing a site backup never hurts, but generally isn't important. Review Board won't delete any files. At most, it'd add some new directories and tell you to change permissions, but I don't think we've done that since 1.5. We have provided instructions on other sorts of manual updates that need to be made, though. We don't have any documentation right now on p4python's SSL support. This is only needed if you're using SSL-backed Perforce repositories. It's unfortunately not something we can automate well right now, but essentially, you'd have to install OpenSSL 1.0.1 on your distro and install its development package (I don't know if newer versions work -- hopefully other 1.0.x releases do). You'd then need to manually compile/install p4python. Yes, it's a pain, but it's something Perforce will need to make easier for us. From the e-mail you just posted while I was replying to this, you'd need to check the reviewboard.log file and see what error it's reporting before I can say what happened. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:10 AM, chuck j cjerr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Christian, I would like to thank you for your response about upgrade. I went through with your comments and i was able to bring my server to 1.7.4. Also also want to bring to your notice regarding below warning i got after while upgrading my site. /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site- -- Ze Lin Xiao -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://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
Issue 3284 in reviewboard: Negative amouant of total reviews
Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 3284 by zhangsan...@gmail.com: Negative amouant of total reviews http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3284 *** READ THIS BEFORE POSTING! *** *** You must complete this form in its entirety, or your bug report will be rejected. *** *** For customer support, please post to reviewbo...@googlegroups.com *** *** If you have a patch, please submit it to http://reviews.reviewboard.org/ *** *** Do not post confidential information in this bug report! What version are you running? 2.0 Beta3 What's the URL of the page containing the problem? http://reviewboard.example/dashboard/ What steps will reproduce the problem? 1.have some code reviews(no matter is outgoing or incoming) 2.select all of them and then discard them first in the outgoing or incoming section 3.go to the all section, select all and then do a discard again. Now you can see negative numbers What is the expected output? What do you see instead? It should be positive, not negative numbers What operating system are you using? What browser? Ubuntu + chrome Please provide any additional information below. So I guess, the counter count twice(means total-2) when user discard a code review twice. -- You received this message because this project is configured to send all issue notifications to this address. You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://code.google.com/hosting/settings -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard-issues group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Issue 3284 in reviewboard: Negative amouant of total reviews
Comment #1 on issue 3284 by zhangsan...@gmail.com: Negative amouant of total reviews http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3284 Seems the RC1 version has this bug fixed. I just dont know how to close this issue. -- You received this message because this project is configured to send all issue notifications to this address. You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://code.google.com/hosting/settings -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard-issues group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Issue 3284 in reviewboard: Negative amouant of total reviews
Comment #2 on issue 3284 by trowb...@gmail.com: Negative amouant of total reviews http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3284 Hmm. I don't think we made any changes that would affect this. -- You received this message because this project is configured to send all issue notifications to this address. You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://code.google.com/hosting/settings -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard-issues group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Issue 3284 in reviewboard: Negative amouant of total reviews
Comment #3 on issue 3284 by zhangsan...@gmail.com: Negative amouant of total reviews http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3284 But the truth is...After I update my RB instance, all the negative amounts are gone and the total amounts act normal now...The bug is fixed anyway:) -- You received this message because this project is configured to send all issue notifications to this address. You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://code.google.com/hosting/settings -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard-issues group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard-issues@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard-issues. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
