Re: Issue 2239 in reviewboard: Adding comment to review does not work with Chrome 14.0.835.94
Comment #4 on issue 2239 by alan.lam...@gmail.com: Adding comment to review does not work with Chrome 14.0.835.94 http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2239 I suspect the issue with this bug is neither Chrome nor Review Board. The culprit is Ad-block. If you force an Ad-Block update, this functionality should work as expected. If this is the case for everyone else, you can probably close this bug. -- 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 2049 in reviewboard: Filtering requests at least by fields Repository, Reviews, Submitter
Comment #1 on issue 2049 by dane.bet...@gmail.com: Filtering requests at least by fields Repository, Reviews, Submitter http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2049 I think we should be able to filter any column we can sort by. In my company the ship it status is used to indicate that a file is ready for a final code review by our gatekeepers prior to being distributed. As a result, I sort by the ship it status, and I only review items that have not yet been approved. -- 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 2054 in reviewboard: RBTools-0.3.2 + Perforce - failed to upload diff when source file is a new file
Comment #3 on issue 2054 by roasti...@gmail.com: RBTools-0.3.2 + Perforce -
failed to upload diff when source file is a new file
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2054
Referring to the bug description above by benbe...@gmail.com:
File c:\Python27\lib\httplib.py, line 809, in _send_output
msg += message_body
The problem was that one string is ASCII and the other is Unicode.
The solution is to create a sitecustomize.py file that says:
#!/usr/local/bin/python
# -*- coding: UTF-8 -*-
import sys
sys.setdefaultencoding('utf-8')
and store the file at %PYTHONHOME%/Lib/site-packages.
This step says that all strings should be treated as Unicode.
The bug is then fixed.
--
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 2315 in reviewboard: RBTools 0.3.4 is not backward compatible with Reviewboard 1.0.9
Updates: Status: NeedInfo Owner: chip...@gmail.com Labels: Component-RBTools Comment #1 on issue 2315 by chip...@gmail.com: RBTools 0.3.4 is not backward compatible with Reviewboard 1.0.9 http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2315 Can you test this with the patch provided here: http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/2634/ -- 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 2313 in reviewboard: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate
Comment #3 on issue 2313 by dru...@gmail.com: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2313 Here is the error trace: http://paste2.org/p/1688251 -- 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 2313 in reviewboard: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate
Comment #5 on issue 2313 by trowb...@gmail.com: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2313 Christian, this is in David's diff-storage changes -- 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 2313 in reviewboard: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate
Comment #6 on issue 2313 by chip...@gmail.com: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2313 Oh hah. That makes sense. The username is cut off so I didn't associate it. Okay, same question though. Why would id be explicitly turned off? And how are you even doing that? -- 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 2313 in reviewboard: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate
Comment #7 on issue 2313 by chip...@gmail.com: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2313 I think what's actually happening is that the wrong sort of data is going into that field. Maybe it just can't be used with defaults=. Try setting it explicitly on the object. -- 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 2313 in reviewboard: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate
Comment #8 on issue 2313 by dru...@gmail.com: Base64Field requires an AutoField key to operate http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2313 From the Django docs: If you'd like to specify a custom primary key, just specify primary_key=True on one of your fields. If Django sees you've explicitly set Field.primary_key, it won't add the automatic id column. Yes, this is a modification of the diff-storage posted; the only difference being primary_key=True on the hash id. -- 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.
