Is there an API available to retrieve the 'Describe the submission
(optional)' field in submitted reviews? I couldn't find it anywhere in the
API documentation. Also, I'm not sure if this is a bug or feature, but it
appears that this field is distinct depending upon whether you are viewing
the
Upgrade to 1.6 beta 2 went fine for me. However, I noticed there are a
couple lines in the release note indicating some fixes for incoming
review and starred review request counts. This doesn't seem to have
fixed the counts for me. I currently have -15 incoming reviews and -1
outgoing reviews.
VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
Upgrade to 1.6 beta 2 went fine for me. However, I noticed there are a
couple lines in the release note indicating some fixes for incoming
review and starred review request counts
Hi Alexander,
I read your proposal and I found it to be a bit vague. After I
searched for your previous proposal message, I found you were
discussing a new version of post-review, so I assume that that is
still within the scope of this project? When you talk about new
commands, can you cite some
Hi Jan,
The intent of the post-review default behavior is to attempt to
automatically produce a diff of the user's current work. So, it will
look for commits not merged into the tracking branch for the current
branch. For a bare repository, this no longer makes sense. I would
think only the
This is not implemented. However, Django supports this kind of
authentication, so I imagine you could add support for it. Looking at
the docs, it seems really simple, though I've never found anything
with single-sign-on to be simple...
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/howto/auth-remote-user/
Is your server running Linux? I've only tested Clearcase support using
a Windows RB server. Take a look at line 83 of clearcase.py:
http://github.com/reviewboard/reviewboard/blob/master/reviewboard/scmtools/clearcase.py
You're likely going to need to do some editing here. I don't know
anything
There's no amount of options that will help you here since there's no
support in post-review for bazaar at all :) If you're interested in
adding support, you could start by making a copy of the
MercurialClient in postreview.py. Bazaar ought to be extremely
similar. Does uploading a diff via the
Can you check the mailing lists and reviews.reviewboard.org? This
sounds like something that came up before. Unfortunately post-review
and Clearcase support are not in particularly good shape in the
released version. It really needs to have some newer patches merged in
to get things working more
Hi Yang,
This actually brings up a good point. I don't think there currently is
a 'better' solution. I hope Christian can perhaps chime in on this,
since RB is using git itself. The conventional way to set this up is
to configure the mirror url, but this assumes that the client fetch
from a
My general workflow is to create a topic branch tracking one of the
official branches on a remote server and let post-review detect the
merge base. This generates a diff between the last state of that
branch and my changes. I don't use RB for merge reviews.
It would be good if we got an update on
The documentation and clearcase support in rbtools is rather outdated.
I believe Jan has an improvement so you don't need to use my cleartool
lsco hack among other things.
There are a large number of patches in the queue on
reviews.reviewboard.org but they don't appear to be going anywhere.
It would probably be useful to publish a branch on github since there
are a lot of patches and the diff download on RB doesn't include the
git patch header. We should probably update the docs too to at least
indicate the instructions may be out of date until these get merged
into rbtools master.
I've added support for changing the syntax highlighting scheme, if
that will help with your disappointment in the highlighting. It's
working, but it needs some better integration for installation. Right
now you have to hack up the pygments generated styles with a script.
:
Ok :) So question to authors.
How this should looks like?
On Mar 10, 10:26 pm, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
I think Clearcase can be used in a way where that type of extended
path is valid. You should double check if you can open that file path
directly yourself and perhaps see
I think Clearcase can be used in a way where that type of extended
path is valid. You should double check if you can open that file path
directly yourself and perhaps see why it might think that is the
previous version. I don't really understand the logic used to find
previous revisions in
I would generalize Stephen's idea and just call it general support for
distributed vcs workflow since RB isn't really built around that model
and we're kind of stuffing it in after the fact.
I'd also love to see performance improvements. I haven't done any real
comparisons, but Rietveld and
://www.vmware.com
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
I would generalize Stephen's idea and just call it general support for
distributed vcs workflow since RB isn't really built around that model
and we're kind of stuffing it in after the fact.
I'd also
How do you have the server configured? The server needs to point to a
dynamic view where it will be able to access the file revisions
specified via extended path notation.
Dan
On Feb 17, 10:15 am, eeiths eei...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, i got to spend a little time at this today.
looks like
post-review can actually generate any arbitrary diff, not just a diff
against HEAD. Make sure you're using the latest nightly build of
rbtools for this functionality. It also supports a 'parent diff' mode
where you can specify a parent of your diff set such that if you are
submitting a series of
http://github.com/reviewboard/rbtools
You can submit reviews against rbtools in the same location as
reviewboard reviews.
Dan
On Feb 4, 9:57 am, Stephen Gallagher karrde...@gmail.com wrote:
Where can the RBTools source be checked out? I have a few
contributions I'd like to make.
Also, is
the first patch
directly, then the second patch with a parent diff of the first patch,
then the third patch with a parent diff of the sum of the first two
patches.
Dan
On Feb 4, 10:33 am, Stephen Gallagher karrde...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:20 am, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote
I don't know how similarly people use Clearcase, but I am fairly
certain that the way my organization uses it is very non-standard. The
typical review scenario would be to review modified code in a view,
not checked in code.
Fitting Clearcase's model into Reviewboard is a bit of square in round
Hi Sassan,
The latest docs have some instructions on how to use post-review with
Clearcase. In fact, it's the only way to post a review with Clearcase.
http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/users/tools/post-review/
I wrote it using some unix-ish examples, but I actually tested the
Hi Nitin,
There are some instructions in the documentation on setting up Review
Board for ClearCase which you should start with, as well as various
threads you can search for in the mailing list. However, I'd recommend
you find someone who is comfortable with ClearCase and cleartool to
set it up.
You can run post-review with the -d option to see what it is trying to
do. I suspect the git get_repository_info() check is failing. It will
start by running:
$ git rev-parse --git-dir
and then a few more commands, which will all be listed with the -d
option. Once you see where it fails, you
Lobby for http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1144/ to get committed and
you should be all set. :) For now, the only options are to use the web
form or specify a revision range manually.
Can you explain more about the error with the web form? You mentioned
git diff, and if you meant that literally,
There was a problem like this with git support a long time ago. Can
you add use the diff only option and make sure the diff it generates
looks somewhat reasonable?
Dan
On Oct 23, 11:22 am, James jimspe...@gmail.com wrote:
Per an earlier thread I'm trying to get Review Board working on a
I agree these could be useful features, but you have to be careful not
to delve into the 'policy' realm which will make everyone despise the
tool.
We also use CodeCollaborator where I work and no one wants to use it
for small reviews because it's a waste of time. It implements this
ping-pong
AM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
I got the following error during the evolution:
# rb-site upgrade /home/reviewboard_head
Rebuilding directory structure
Updating database. This may take a while.
There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer.
Project signature has changed
If you search the mailing list archives, you should see several
threads on the subject, including one where I described my process of
setting up Clearcase support and the limitations we've seen.
Dan
On Sep 17, 5:52 am, irshad irshada...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Review Board 1.0 Release Notes
Hi Marek,
Have you tried the parent diff option? This is designed for
distributed version control and allows you to specify a base 'parent'
diff, based off of a known revision in the remote repository on the
reviewboard server, and the main diff can then be based off of the
parent diff. There
that CCRC can
be used for views created by cleartool and otherwise. CCRC is
alternative for cleartool.
Now we're testing approach when diff file are generated by
reviewboard, not by post-review.
Michael.
On Aug 18, 5:40 pm, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
The clearcase support
The clearcase support relies on the extended path notation through the
clearcase filesystem and uses cleartool to query the view. I'd never
heard of CCRC before, but anything involving Clearcase and the word
'remote' can't possibly be a good thing. Do you have any more details
on how this tools
: /mnt/ftpit/Stream_Name/Component_name/@@/main/0//
@@..myfile.java@@/@@/main/Stream_name/8: No such file or directory\n
I am diving deeper.
On Aug 5, 3:27 am, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
Clearcase support only officially works through post-review since it
needs to do some
Jianquan,
You can follow the link in the windows installation instructions here:
http://review-board.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/installation/windows/
Dan
On Aug 5, 11:07 pm, jianquan bianjianq...@gmail.com wrote:
hi Karthik
where can i download the GNU-Patch.exe file? I meet the same issue as
Hi Joyjit,
Are you talking about comments that precede the actual diff in the
patch? This is a problem for git patches, and a bug 1229 is open for
it. I looked into the issue a bit and I think it can be resolved by
maintaining the extra info as part of the diff set. Right now, RB
splits the diff
Check that your pythonXX/Scripts directory is in your path. This is
not added by default.
Dan
On Aug 4, 4:24 am, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote:
How did you install Review Board on that system? Can you list the steps you
performed?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond -
Clearcase support only officially works through post-review since it
needs to do some tricks to generate the diff. How did you create this
fake diff? Can you try following the steps I provided in this thread
and see if you are able to get it to work?
I've only deployed RB with Clearcase for local testing, but the base
path should just point to the server's view. It doesn't matter locally
that that drive may or may not exist. Clearcase doesn't really fit
into the model of the other supported scms where you can query it to
find out the 'remote'
...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 12:59 pm, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
Friendly reminder: please don't post passwords or other sensitive
information on the mailing list.
Thanks, but is just a test server and an inutile pass, strong? yes,
seem that my finger can't type a weak pass
configuration or something.
Thanks,
Karthik
On Jul 18, 6:05 am, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
The requirements to use post-review with clearcase are the same as
with any other version control system. The only difference is you pass
a list of filenames as arguments to the script
Friendly reminder: please don't post passwords or other sensitive
information on the mailing list.
What's happening is that it's falling through mercurial detection into
clearcase, and it fails to detect any vcs. It will test for a
mercurial-svn repository first, so you should expect that to
to post-review to automatically collect
checked out files.
Dan
On Jul 17, 6:50 am, 夏勇杰 notox...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
I have some questions about post review.
Should we install cygwin for post-review in order to make it work with
Clearcase?
On Jul 17, 9:32 am, Dan Savilonis d...@n
-review doesn't work, easy_install rbtools should install the
python dependencies.
Dan
On Jul 17, 8:11 pm, 吴开春 wukaic...@gmail.com wrote:
请教一下，你装起来用了没有？
On Jul 17, 10:23 pm, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
It is not required. post-review simply includes support for cygwin
(i.e. path
could only use that notation
within a dynamic view, but I'm probably wrong.
Dan
On Jul 10, 5:38 pm, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
I will try to write up my experience as I can. (Un)fortunately, we're
not using RB with Clearcase right now, as I run a rogue Clearcase-to-
git system, and use RB
I will try to write up my experience as I can. (Un)fortunately, we're
not using RB with Clearcase right now, as I run a rogue Clearcase-to-
git system, and use RB with git :)
At minimum right now, we need to get the the line from Bartek's patch
to add split_line=TRUE committed or post-review
Are you using post-review on a regular git repository? The check is
there to determine if it is a git-svn repository (git repository that
synchronizes with svn). I think it needs to come first because you
can't directly check that a repository is pure git. Since git-svn is a
perl script, I
your models.py by hand? You shouldn't really be
seeing this error.
When you copied the database over, was this through a file copy or a
database dump?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
VMware, Inc.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote
have an out-of-date version of this.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
VMware, Inc.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Dan Savilonis d...@n-cube.org wrote:
I don't think I modified anything intentionally. I just copied the
sqlite3 database file to the new location
50 matches
Mail list logo
