Did you manage to solve this in the end?
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 10:31:36 UTC+1, NSJ wrote:
Thank you !!, when i do p4 info i get the correct value, but when i ran it
from post-review takes it as localhost.
I will check what is missing.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Christian
In addition to this, I added some extra debugging to the get_file() method.
Printing the SubversionException that's returned from self.client.cat shows:
Unable to connect to a repository at URL
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Bruce Cran bruce.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Running a full reindex seems to be working, but is this a bug that people
need to be aware of?
Hmm, or maybe not:
user@host:~$ sudo /usr/local/bin/rb-site manage /var/www/reviews index
-- --full
Removing all documents
Hello All,
I'm evaluating Review Board. I'm running RB version 2.0.1 on Centos 6.5
with Mercurial v 2.8.3.
My question is regarding the rbt post command: After I do a commit and
run rbt post, I get the following error:
ERROR: Error creating review request: Review request with this commit ID
I had the same problem. When you configure your reviewboard, you have to
give it a site name . Some thing like reviewboard.mycompany.com. It
doesn't have to be a registered name just make up something.
Then when you try to access the reviewboard main page, use the site name
FWIW, I don't think it is ignoring the existing index, I think it's just
that haystack's output is a little confusing.
If you'd like to switch over, haystack uses new indexing commands:
rb-site manage /path/to/site rebuild_index
rb-site manage /path/to/site update_index
The old index command is
I also get this error when trying to post a new diff for a review that was
created under 1.7.x now that we have upgraded to 2.0.1. We are using
Perforce as the repository (no encodings specified) and using rbt 0.6 to
post the diff. I think the trick is that I'm deleting the binary file
because
Hi Shubha,
I just tried this locally, and it was able to download Whoosh.
If you go to http://pypi.python.org/simple/Whoosh/, does it look like a list of
valid download links?
In my case, it downloaded Whoosh-2.6.0.zip and installed that. You can try
manually downloading and seeing if that
They don’t need to specify a version number. It is using the tip.
What’s happening with that error is that you’ve already posted a review request
representing the commit that you’ve posted for review. Review Board tries to
keep a 1-to-1 mapping of commit ID and review request, and so it’s
Can you uninstall subvertpy and install PySVN instead? It might work a lot
better.
I’m working to shake some bugs out of the subvertpy backend. Given that it’s
pretty new, it’s also a bit buggy.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com
Review Board -
Following those instructions exactly I
get an error message of "The specified diff file is empty", which
is not surprising since file2.txt was never added to the
repository.
If I do "hg add file2.txt" before the first qnew on the other
hand, "hg
Thanks. For some reason a rebuild takes 10 minutes while an update takes
25, so they're obviously doing something different - except I'd expect the
update to be much faster.
user@host:~$ sudo time rb-site manage /var/www/reviews rebuild_index
WARNING: This will irreparably remove EVERYTHING from
I'm using Mercurial 3.0, ReviewBoard 2.0.1 and as of today, the latest code
from https://bitbucket.org/ccaughie/hgreviewboard . I did forget to add hg
add file2.txt to the list of steps, but I ran it during testing. Should
the code figure out which revision to use for the parent diff base? It
Ah - yes, you have to use the -o option to tell ReviewBoard to figure
out the parent diff base by doing the equivalent of hg outgoing. For
this to work you need to make sure that your default push repository is
the same as the one that ReviewBoard sees; if it isn't you can use -O
instead. (hg
Hello,
Thank you for taking a look at the problem. When I issue: rbt post
--tracking-branch default for on the designated Mercurial repository, the
same error message is reported. Shall I just wait for version 0.6.1?
Thank you.
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 7:25:45 AM UTC+9, David Trowbridge
I believe you need to use = when specifying long options:
rbt post --tracking-branch=default
That said, if your upstream branch is named 'default', it should be able to
find it. I'm not sure why there are no paths.branch entries in your 'hg
showconfig'
-David
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:35 PM,
Hi Alan,
Looks like you set ‘fieldset_id’ and not ‘field_id’, which would cause this
problem.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
On June 4, 2014 at 4:55:41 PM, Alan Ray
Is this procedure valid for going from 1.5.5 -- 1.7.25?
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:04:44 PM UTC-5, Christian Hammond wrote:
Those are just part of the output from one command it runs. It then runs
the command to resolve that. We'll probably want to start hiding those..
Glad it works!
Hi Ali Ghorashi,
Thanks for your reply.
I did the same as you suggested but still facing same problem.
Actually I am accessing a remote machine and installing review board on
that machine and accessing it from my machine using
machine_ip/reviewboard.mycompany.com.
*If you* have any other
Hi Ali Ghorashi,
Thanks for your reply.
I did the same as you suggested but still facing same problem.
Actually I am accessing a remote machine and installing review board on
that machine and accessing it from my machine using machine_ip/
reviewboard.mycompany.com.
And when I am looking into
Comment #2 on issue 3397 by rafal.wo...@gmail.com: Wrong review request
window formatting after upgrading from 1.7.22 to 2.0.1
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3397
I spent some time on investigating this issue and I already know how to
reproduce it. Please have
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 3398 by hith...@gmail.com: Error displaying this diff
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3398
What version are you running? 2,0,1
What's the URL of the page containing the problem? r/218/diff/#
What
Comment #1 on issue 3398 by chip...@gmail.com: Error displaying this diff
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3398
You'll need to talk to your administrator about this. There's nothing we
can do without the diff.
--
You received this message because this project is
Comment #2 on issue 3398 by hith...@gmail.com: Error displaying this diff
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3398
I'm my administrator, I don't know whats speciall about that diff and is
happening with others as well
--
You received this message because this project is
Comment #3 on issue 3398 by chip...@gmail.com: Error displaying this diff
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3398
Okay, my apologies. We get these questions a lot on here and they're
usually from general users on a server.
First thing to check is the files in the temp
Comment #2 on issue 3339 by bruce.c...@gmail.com: 2.0RC3: ldap.open() is
deprecated - use ldap.initialize() instead
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3339
Should this have been fixed in 2.0.x? It appears it's only in master
Updates:
Summary: Minor UI bug on review request page with long field text
Comment #2 on issue 3371 by trowb...@gmail.com: Minor UI bug on review
request page with long field text
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3371
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
Updates:
Status: Duplicate
Mergedinto: 3371
Comment #3 on issue 3397 by trowb...@gmail.com: Wrong review request window
formatting after upgrading from 1.7.22 to 2.0.1
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3397
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You
Comment #3 on issue 3371 by trowb...@gmail.com: Minor UI bug on review
request page with long field text
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3371
Issue 3397 has been merged into this issue.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue
Comment #1 on issue 3399 by bruce.c...@gmail.com: v2.0.1, RB throws
LookupError in convert_to_unicode for ISO-8859 with CRLF file
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3399
The file contains a section symbol '§' which is probably causing the
problem, since it's non-ascii.
Comment #3 on issue 3339 by chip...@gmail.com: 2.0RC3: ldap.open() is
deprecated - use ldap.initialize() instead
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3339
I just copied this to the 2.0 branch. It'll be part of the 2.0.2.
--
You received this message because this project is
Comment #2 on issue 3399 by bruce.c...@gmail.com: v2.0.1, RB throws
LookupError in convert_to_unicode for ISO-8859 with CRLF file
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3399
Overriding the encoding to be utf-8 appears to have fixed (worked around?)
the problem.
--
You
Comment #7 on issue 921 by erik.l...@gmail.com: Add post-commit review
submission to post-review for perforce
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=921
I don't think this change actually solves the problem. When you list a
single CLN, it appears to treat it as a range of
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 3400 by davwill...@gmail.com: Unable to Download Diff
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3400
*** READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!
***
*** You must complete this form in its entirety, or your bug report will be
Updates:
Status: NotABug
Comment #1 on issue 3400 by trowb...@gmail.com: Unable to Download Diff
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3400
If a diff was uploaded by hand, the filename that it downloads
from Download Diff will be whatever it was when the author
35 matches
Mail list logo
