event of a
> conflict, there should be a log error, not a failure to load the URL.
>
> Check your site's conf/settings_local.py and make sure this is still
> present:
>
> DEBUG = False
>
> Christian
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 6:58 AM Chris Hightower
> wrote:
&g
week, which fixes possible issues here.
> This one hasn’t come up in our testing, but I’ll try to reproduce this and
> make sure it’s working before release.
>
> What version of Python is the server running?
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:21 Chris Hightow
After upgrading from ReviewBoard 4 to 5.0, when trying to use the API, we
receive a 500 response.
Visiting http://reviewboard.mydomain.com/api gives the following:
ImproperlyConfigured at /api/
More than one URI template was mapped to the "commits" name:
!
Chris
On Friday, 5 August 2022 at 01:50:16 UTC+1 Christian Hammond wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> That usually points to either a cache server issue (I know you checked
> this), slowdown with the database (usual culprit — make sure that's not
> hitting RAM/disk space issues or showing
Hi,
I've installed reviewboard using the docker image, which has been running
for 3-4 months, but recently we've noticed severe performance problems.
Currently loading any page from reviewboard takes around 9 seconds. This
figure is consistent and is the same whether targeting nginx or the
--squash-history will work great for my team! Thanks Mark!
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:15:41 PM UTC-5 mark.f...@hrhgeology.com wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> to quote Christian Hammond from a previous email
>
> We've hit a few issues like that with Mercurial, and it partly has to
Hello all!
We're trying to swtich to ReviewBoard from JetBrains Upsource, and we're
attempting to do some post-commit reviews.
The error we're seeing from rbt post happens during the 'validating
commits' stage, and it fails with Error Validating Diff
You can replicate this with a mercurial
We had been using CVS for our version control since about 25 years ago and
migrated our repository over to SVN.
The new reviews work fine pointing to our svn repo, but any reviews that
were pointing to our now non-existent CVS repo throw an error.
I am certainly willing to do the work to do
I'm using subvertpy though, would you be willing to try
installing that?
On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 1:44:45 AM UTC-8, Wojciech Czernek wrote:
>
> I'm on latest 3.0.16 version.
>
> W dniu niedziela, 2 lutego 2020 02:03:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Chris Lang
> napisał:
>>
>>
What version of Review Board are you on?
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-8, Wojciech Czernek wrote:
>
> Chris,
> I already checked this logs with enabled debug logging in Review Board and
> there is nothing helpful.
>
> Thanks
>
> W dniu piątek, 31 styc
Hello, did you already check the logs of where it's installed, there should
be a logs folder under the installation, mine for example is
/var/www/reviews/logs
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-8, Wojciech Czernek wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I've recently installed ReviewBoard on RHEL 7.7
0.3 so I did a pip
install djblets==1.0.12, restarted httpd and it's working! Yay!
On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:33:47 AM UTC-8, Chris Lang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am getting a 500 error after upgrading from 3.0.3 to 3.0.16.
>
> In /etc/httpd/logs/error_log I am seeing the fo
I did restart httpd and memcached as well
On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:33:47 AM UTC-8, Chris Lang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am getting a 500 error after upgrading from 3.0.3 to 3.0.16.
>
> In /etc/httpd/logs/error_log I am seeing the following:
>
> [Fri Jan 31 13:30:24.305
Hi,
I am getting a 500 error after upgrading from 3.0.3 to 3.0.16.
In /etc/httpd/logs/error_log I am seeing the following:
[Fri Jan 31 13:30:24.305794 2020] [suexec:notice] [pid 3619:tid
139654422091904] AH01232: suEXEC mechanism enabled (wrapper:
/usr/sbin/suexec)
[Fri Jan 31 13:30:24.470458
Hi Christain,
Thank you very much that information is greatly appreciated. I will look at
the versions of Mysql and Django that we are currently running.
Regards,
Chris
On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 4:15 PM Christian Hammond
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> There shouldn't be from our end, but it
to dry the
upgrade process before doing our actual upgrade. So, out of curiosity in
going from 2.5.7 to 3.0.11, while there be any issues migrating our mysql
databases when going to 3.0.11?
Regards,
Chris
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-5, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi
Hi,
I tried to use easy_install to upgrade from 2.5.7 (installed through yum
install) to 3.0.11 and got the following errors. Is there away I can work
around this?
[root@centos7-dev-server ~]# easy_install -U ReviewBoard
Searching for ReviewBoard
Reading
Hey Christian,
Yes all it needed was a full index. Silly mistake on my part for not
running that first.
Thanks,
Chris
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Search has been completely rewritten since 2.0. We use a diff
Hi all-
I'm testing out upgrading our RB instance from 2.5.16 to the latest
(3.0.3). We're running in an AWS instance and our database is an RDS
instance running the MySQL 5.6.35 engine. I cloned both of those and got it
into a running state. Following the documentation, I ran "easy_install -U
Hi all,
I have upgraded from version 2.0.20 to 3.0.3 and am going through comparing
them side by side with the same data in each.
One thing I noticed is that the search does not produce the same results.
In fact, I'm getting no results on the 3.0.3 for searches that I get
results for on
Hi Rafal,
Yes, unfortunately EPEL does not have version 3 of ReviewBoard yet.
I have installed 3.0.3 successfully by running easy_install ReviewBoard
Let me know if you have any issues.
Regards,
Chris
On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 9:33:00 AM UTC-7, Rafał Cichoń wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
I resolved that issue by enabling syntax highlighting from the admin panel.
Thanks again!
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:39:04 PM UTC-7, Chris Lang wrote:
>
> Looks like most pages are working properly but when I click on "My
> Account" I get the following error:
>
nces/
Django Version: 1.6.11.6
Exception Type: KeyError
Exception Value:
u"Key u'syntax_highlighting' not found in Form"
Exception Location: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/forms/forms.py
in __getitem__, line 114
Python Executable: /usr/bin/python
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 a
an empty database and then use your database
> dump to populate it. rb-site upgrade will convert the schema to the new
> format.
>
> -David
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:07 PM Chris Lang <crla...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Alright here are my current steps for
running the rb-site
upgrade?
Thanks,
Chris
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 1:03:37 PM UTC-7, Chris Lang wrote:
>
> Hmmm, I did a few things since yesterday, reinstalled ReviewBoard, did the
> rb-site upgrade again and now the site is showing in the browser but there
> are no review requ
Hmmm, I did a few things since yesterday, reinstalled ReviewBoard, did the
rb-site upgrade again and now the site is showing in the browser but there
are no review requests, nothing in console, and nothing new in the
reviewboard log.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Chris
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 6:59
> kept me swamped for the last couple months. Hopefully soon, though.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018, 3:23 PM Chris Lang <crla...@gmail.com >
> wrote:
>
>> I will take your advice and upgrade, thats great to hear that I will be
>> able to install the newer version.
&g
sions of the packages you were using there. You can force
> the installation of the appropriate versions with:
>
> sudo easy_install package_name==version
>
> Christian
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Chris Lang <crla...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm th
I'm thinking it'll be safer to move to the new machine first and then
upgrade, and in case anything goes wrong with the upgrade, the team can
continue using the old server.
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:24:40 PM UTC-8, Chris Lang wrote:
>
> Do you think it'd be easier to upgrade
Do you think it'd be easier to upgrade first and then move to the new
server? CentOS -> Redhat.
I'm trying to minimize downtime since our developers use it around the
clock.
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:17:42 PM UTC-8, Chris Lang wrote:
>
> Hey Christian,
>
> Yes, I'm moving
Hey Christian,
Yes, I'm moving between servers for security reasons. What version of
ReviewBoard would you recommend upgrading to?
Regards,
Chris
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:08:03 PM UTC-8, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Django 1.6.11 is correct. You likely ha
onConflict: (Django 1.6.11
(/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages), Requirement.parse('Django>=1.8,<1.12'))
I cannot get a version of Django that satisfies both. Not sure what to do
from here.
Thanks,
Chris
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpa
I can't seem to find anything about doing a full backup in the
documentation.
I'm on 2.0.20 and need to upgrade CentOS.
Any links or help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Chris
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board
I'm trying out the reports included in the power packs extension, but in
order for me to generate reports for all users it seems I have to add all
the users one by one in to the "Posted By" filter field. I would have
thought leaving it blank or using an * would include all users but this
--
To reply, visit https://hellosplat.com/s/beanbag/tickets/4625/
--
New ticket #4625 by Delpire
For Beanbag, Inc. > Review Board
Status: New
//reviewboard.domain/api/review-requests//
-Chris
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 4:44:04 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I'm afraid the changes I talked about were limited to the LDAP support,
> not Active Directory. The newer version won't fix your problem.
&
kwargs)
OPERATIONS_ERROR: {'info': '04DC: LdapErr: DSID-0C090752, comment: In
order to perform this operation a successful bind must be completed on the
connection., data 0, v2580', 'desc': 'Operations error'}
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 5:52:51 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
>
Sometimes our Review Board server sends emails to the Administrator email
account to report errors. I don't see a setting anywhere to control what
gets sent to the administrators, but some of these issues are ones that we
aren't particularly interested in receiving. For instance, the following
That worked, thanks!
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 4:37:44 PM UTC-4, Chris Eagan wrote:
>
> I am trying to trigger a Jenkins Job using WebHooks in Review Board and I
> need to submit a custom payload as form data. After installing the
> https://plugins.jenkins.io/build-token-ro
I am trying to trigger a Jenkins Job using WebHooks in Review Board and I
need to submit a custom payload as form data. After installing
the https://plugins.jenkins.io/build-token-root plugin, I tried using the
following settings.
URL:
We recently migrated from Review Board 2.0.x to 2.5.x and I noticed that
there is a new feature for loading information from Bugzilla using the
Bugzilla API. We require authentication on our Bugzilla instance and we are
seeing a lot of errors in our Review Board logs related to Bugzilla
eone else. :)
On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 9:16:05 AM UTC-4, Chris Eagan wrote:
>
> When attempting to perform an rb-site upgrade from version 2.0.18 to
> 2.5.9, I get the following output, ending in an error. If I continue,
> further table creation issues occur and the result is a corrup
eone else. :)
On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 9:16:05 AM UTC-4, Chris Eagan wrote:
>
> When attempting to perform an rb-site upgrade from version 2.0.18 to
> 2.5.9, I get the following output, ending in an error. If I continue,
> further table creation issues occur and the result is a corrup
between the two releases I am trying to install?
On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 9:16:05 AM UTC-4, Chris Eagan wrote:
>
> When attempting to perform an rb-site upgrade from version 2.0.18 to
> 2.5.9, I get the following output, ending in an error. If I continue,
> further table creation
When attempting to perform an rb-site upgrade from version 2.0.18 to 2.5.9,
I get the following output, ending in an error. If I continue, further
table creation issues occur and the result is a corrupted database. I do
have a backup of the database, which I have been using to restore and test
03)
cwestin@qa-node66:~/hg/dev1$
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 2:20:45 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond
wrote:
>
> Can you try without --username, and instead let RBTools prompt for one?
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.be
ammond
wrote:
>
> You can pass --debug to the RBTools command line.
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:57 AM, 'Ch
t; On Tuesday, September 13, 2016, 'Chris Westin' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> So, no resolution to this? I'm seeing the exact same thing on a fresh
>> install on Ubuntu. Everything is stock.
>>
>> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 a
So, no resolution to this? I'm seeing the exact same thing on a fresh
install on Ubuntu. Everything is stock.
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 5:55:07 AM UTC-8, Gauthier Segay wrote:
>
> It might help some encountering this issue, I worked around using the
> .rbtools-cookies files
>
> On
I have been using rbttool for more than one year. Everything worked for me.
Recently I switched to Mac, now I cannot make rbt work anymore.
When I run any rbt command, such as rbt status, I am getting this error:
Syntax error in config file:
I've since switched companies and am no longer using RB nor Mercurial so I
can't confirm either way, sorry.
Chris
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Wolfgang Hottgenroth <
wolfgang.hottgenr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> This is a rather old thread, so I hope the people discussing here ar
Hey I had this same issue and got it to work after disabling selinux. Not
sure that this is the best solution but the only one I could find since
running all of the chown lines did not fix this for me.
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Hey I am wondering if there are any success stories for this upgrade on
older versions of these os'.
I have a Fedora 15 vm and am wondering if it is worth it to try this
upgrade or move to a newer vm altogether. Thanks.
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
Hi all,
I want to know if I would be able to make this upgrade on Fedora 15.
If this would be too difficult would it be better to transfer my
ReviewBoard Database to a new machine with a newer OS, say CentOS 7.
Thanks,
Chris
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https
at
the moment (I'm learning it though!). So it if nobody has done it by then,
I would definitely do this. Thanks for all of your work and help.
Chris
On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 4:10:42 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hey Chris,
This sounds like something that would be a good addition
to express interest in having such an option available for
everyone. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Chris Lang
--
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
or selected for localhost/reviews. .reviewboardrc
not created.
I have been stuck on this for a couple of days and could use some direct
help. Thank you in advance for your help.
Chris
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review
, June 29, 2015 at 3:28:23 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Chris,
setup-repo is looking for an exact match for the CVS repository (indicated
in repository info) on Review Board. It sounds like it's not finding
that.
You can always create your own .reviewboardrc by hand. Simply
This is, however, with SELinux disabled as I get the error validating diff
with SELinux enabled even after setting the sebools as described on
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/installation/creating-sites/#creating-sites
On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 3:53:56 PM UTC-7, Chris Lang
I'm trying to get a new user provisioned in ReviewBoard. His account exists
in LDAP, but when he tries to log into ReviewBoard, he triggers a Bad
search filter error:
2013-12-04 01:51:59,695 - WARNING - - LDAP error: {'desc': 'Bad search
filter'}
The LDAP server seems to be perfectly happy:
:03,633 - WARNING - - LDAP error: The specified object
does not exist in the Directory or provided invalid credentials:
(uid=johndoe)
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Chris Armstrong chris.armstr...@socrata.com
wrote:
I'm trying to get a new user provisioned in ReviewBoard. His account
exists
and the
only post that I found interesting shows the poster as having the same
problem but no solution is given. Any ideas what's wrong?
Thank you,
Chris
--
Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
---
Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https
Could we get some attention from the RB team regarding:
https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2544
The hack suggested in the bug fixed the issue for us, but since it's
monkeypatched we are unable to upgrade to the latest ReviewBoard.
I'm happy to contribute time, but I don't
Christian,
Sounds great. Let me know if I can help.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote:
Hi Chris,
What we really need is a patch that doesn't break compatibility with prior
versions. I'm happy to commit such a patch for the next release.
We're
I get the same errors on the latest version (1.7.17) installed using python
egg.
On Friday, 11 October 2013 16:34:37 UTC+1, Darryl McCutcheon wrote:
I installed Reviewboard 1.7.15 this morning, and I am getting the
following errors on the edit review page.
Uncaught SyntaxError: Use of
Hi all. I've done some searching and can't seem to find anyone else
encountering this issue. I've also looked through all the switches and
can't seem to find the magic combination.
I'm looking to publish a review using post-review of uncommitted code while
picking up any added files.
GNU
on the new files?
We recommend using rbtools (either rbt post or post-review) to create your
review requests, rather than manually creating your diff and uploading it.
-David
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Chris Landry
cla...@miovision.comjavascript:
wrote:
Hi all. I've done some
appear in gitweb - is it possible that I messed something up
there?
We have also tried specifying various other command-line options to rbt:
--parent and --tracking-branch to no avail. Can anyone shed some light on
what's going on?
Thanks,
Chris
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate
ref: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/reviewboard/YmrjZyUsvX8/zqEEgtuznpMJ
On Thu, August 1, 2013 9:18 pm, Chris Armstrong wrote:
Hi folks,
Been struggling with ReviewBoard on this issue and would love some
guidance. I have a repository configured in RB as follows:
Repository type
Christian,
Is it possible for me to make manual changes to the database that would
allow this operation to complete? If I understood more about what the error
is describing, I might be able to make some direct changes to work around
it.
-Chris
On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:45:23 PM UTC-4, Chris
='hostingsvcs.HostingServiceAccount')
]
#--
Trial evolution successful.
Run './manage.py evolve --hint --execute' to apply evolution.
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 2:07:36 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Chris,
That looks like it's trying to re-add a very, very old field
:
Field 'extra_data' has been added
Field 'hosting_account' has been added
*Error: Your models contain changes that Django Evolution cannot resolve
automatically.*
-Chris Eagan
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user
0.6.7-py2.6
On Monday, April 8, 2013 1:46:57 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Chris,
What version of the django_evolution module is installed?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com javascript:
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http
processing dependencies for django-evolution
On Monday, April 8, 2013 1:57:20 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
Try upgrading to 0.6.9. There were a lot of fixes that went in since your
version.
Christian
On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:53, Chris Eagan cea...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
0.6.7
server did
prior to the upgrade.
I have a backup of the database after the first upgrade attempt.
I did not downgrade or wipe any evolutions.
-Chris
On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:11:02 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
When you mentioned different servers, were these each with their own
I recently upgraded to ReviewBoard 1.7.4, and I'm getting the following
error:
MultipleObjectsReturned: get() returned more than one LocalSiteProfile --
it returned 2! Lookup parameters were {'profile': Profile: $USER, 'user':
django.utils.functional.SimpleLazyObject object at 0x7f981fdd09d0,
I thought at one time I was able to find an issue in the issue tracker
relating to a categorizing/classifying comments on a review request but I
can't find it now. Was I dreaming this up or is it there and I'm missing it?
--
Chris Tooley
mobile: 615-525-8067
Instant Messenger
MSN: ctoo
-dev
sudo apt-get install libfreetype6-dev
Using the base OS provided library is usually the better option though (as
per my last update).
On Monday, October 24, 2011 2:29:59 PM UTC-7, Chris Clark wrote:
Thilo-Alexander Ginkel wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 23:01, Christian Hammond
If like to mark them in some way so that they no longer show up in the UI
On Oct 18, 2012 3:03 AM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote:
I'm sorry, I missed the original e-mail. What do you mean by archiving? We
never delete anything from the database and have no capability to archive
saver so I know this is
benign (and I'm hitting publish too) but again sharing in case anyone else
is seeing this.
We're planning an upgrade to 1.6.12 soon, so maybe these will go away?
Chris
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:38:14 PM UTC-7, Chris Clark wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 2
We upgraded a few weeks ago to 1.6.11 and we've hit a few minor problems.
For IE users when they edit the description the newlines disappear and they
get one massive line of text. Some times this occurs when viewing the
description too and not editing. The IE compatibility mode usually helps
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:26:36 AM UTC-7, Robert Dailey wrote:
Are there any screenshots I can look at for various UI improvements
for version 1.7? What do code review pages look like?
Have you seen the live site http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/3347/ ?
--
Want to help the
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:12:08 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
The IE thing is weird, because I don't think anything should have changed
as far as text entry goes in a while... Which IE?
The IE behavior may not be new, for the version see the title (9) but
recall it was seen
button to reach the
table of contents of the diff.
I'm curious to hear what it was that was broken in 1.7 that fixed this
behavior, and whether you'd agree it's actually an improvement and should
be cleaned up and persisted.
thx,
Chris
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Christian Hammond chip
in both versions, and I'm not skilled enough in JS to
reverse-engineer what the change was that fixed this. Can somebody point
me to the changeset and file in which this was fixed so I can patch our
1.6.11 until we move to 1.7?
thx,
Chris
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today
You can tag local revision sets of your changes in Eclipse thereby creating
a reference point to diff against. By combining that with subversion
revision numbers or labels you should be able you get what I think you're
describing.
On Jun 21, 2012 6:57 PM, Jenny Hong thadel...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
this group, send email to
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
--
Chris Tooley
mobile: 615-525-8067
Instant Messenger
MSN: ctoo...@ntrc.net
AIM: mrchristooley
Yahoo: mrchristooley
Google Talk: ctoo
If you used easy_install you probably need to adjust permissions on python
libraries in the /usr/lib/pythonxx directory tree. Look for missing
permissions for o.
On Mar 31, 2012 7:02 PM, Muiz work.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I check the rb-site install log:
Unable to load SCMTool
The other permission group needs read and execute on directories and read
on files.
On Mar 31, 2012 7:32 PM, Muiz work.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Chris,
Which permission should I update?
BTY, my linux is a 64 bit system.
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Chris Tooley ch...@tooley.com
The server name is svn and there is no path to the repo except /?
On Mar 15, 2012 4:39 PM, Britt Pearsall doubl...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas to help with this problem?
We've gotten a read-only user created, however I still cannot get Review
Board to realize there is a
Installing python libraries on CentOS or RHEL 5 via easy_install causes
totally messed up permissions.
On Mar 8, 2012 4:19 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@gmail.com wrote:
Erm, good question.
What version of what distro are you using?
Christian
On Mar 8, 2012, at 13:56, Jan Piotrowski
Hi review board users, I just upgraded from version 1.0.1 to 1.6.3.
Most things are going smoothly. However, when I try to view a diff :
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.6.3-
py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py, line 151, in
.com
Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Chris Baron topher.ba...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the responses.
From the command line, I did an rb-site --version and '0.1' was
returned.
How would I let django
Thanks for the responses.
From the command line, I did an rb-site --version and '0.1' was
returned.
How would I let django evolutions do its thing ?
On Jan 20, 1:10 am, Anton Cohen an...@antoncohen.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Chris Baron topher.ba...@gmail.comwrote
Hi reviewboard people,
There is a reviewboard 0.1 version in production.
There is a 1.6 version in a test environment. Anyone have suggestions
on the best way to copy the 0.1 production data, transform it into 1.6
data?
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
Hi all,
I'm a software engineer by trade and not really a sysadmin, so I'll do
my best to describe the problem.
I'm trying to install Review Board on SuSE 12.1, which uses the linux
3.1 kernel. Also, I'm trying to use Perforce.
When trying to install P4PythonInstaller, I run into trouble
We actually have the same issues and do use multi-line comments. Multi-line
comments are fit when the comment applies to the whole block in our case. I
see what you mean, but it's a confusing option to use for us.
On Jan 6, 2012 8:01 PM, David Trowbridge trowb...@gmail.com wrote:
We don't show
/reviewboard?hl=en
--
Chris Tooley
mobile: 615-525-8067
Instant Messenger
MSN: ctoo...@ntrc.net
AIM: mrchristooley
Yahoo: mrchristooley
Google Talk: ctoo...@gmail.com
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know at http
through each review foropen
issues?
--
Chris Tooley
mobile: 615-525-8067
Instant Messenger
MSN: ctoo...@ntrc.net
AIM: mrchristooley
Yahoo: mrchristooley
Google Talk: ctoo...@gmail.com
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us
What do you mean two-way? You can definitely configure RB to use SSL
with post-review, if that's all you mean.
Chris
On Nov 23, 5:03 pm, Bradley bradstur...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Guys,
We are trying to use post-review to post to a two-way ssl protected RB
instance. Possible?
Using RB 1.6.1
1 - 100 of 223 matches
Mail list logo
