Re: Issue 3165 in reviewboard: Configurable subject of notification mails sent from Review Board

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Comment #3 on issue 3165 by trowb...@gmail.com: Configurable subject of notification mails sent from Review Board https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3165 Issue 3839 has been merged into this issue. -- You received this message because this project is configured to send

Re: Issue 3795 in reviewboard: Redirected back to page 1 of diff when clicking a file link in a multi-page diff

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Comment #6 on issue 3795 by trowb...@gmail.com: Redirected back to page 1 of diff when clicking a file link in a multi-page diff https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3795 Oh, my bad, I looked at the wrong bug fix. This was fixed in git on release-2.0.x (937e172) and will

Re: Issue 3839 in reviewboard: Decorate email subjects with project name to allow email filtering

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Updates: Status: Duplicate Mergedinto: 3165 Comment #1 on issue 3839 by trowb...@gmail.com: Decorate email subjects with project name to allow email filtering https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3839 We do have several e-mail headers that you can use right

Issue 3843 in reviewboard: UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xe2 in position 70: ordinal not in range(128)

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 3843 by markwa...@gmail.com: UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xe2 in position 70: ordinal not in range(128) https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3843 What version are you running? rbt

Re: Issue 3842 in reviewboard: rbtools should use the requests module instead of depending on urllib to do things

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Comment #1 on issue 3842 by chip...@gmail.com: rbtools should use the requests module instead of depending on urllib to do things https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3842 We've evaluated requests before. It might be worth re-evaluating it before RBTools 1.0 at some

Issue 3840 in reviewboard: rbt post provides poor diagnostics if connecting to a server with a certificate that cannot be verified

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 3840 by yaneurab...@gmail.com: rbt post provides poor diagnostics if connecting to a server with a certificate that cannot be verified https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3840 *** READ THIS BEFORE

Issue 3841 in reviewboard: rbtools.api.request hardcodes http return codes

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 3841 by yaneurab...@gmail.com: rbtools.api.request hardcodes http return codes https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3841 Version 0.7.2 Note: this is based purely on code inspection. These numbers should

Re: Issue 3841 in reviewboard: rbtools.api.request hardcodes http return codes

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Comment #3 on issue 3841 by yaneurab...@gmail.com: rbtools.api.request hardcodes http return codes https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3841 They shouldn't change anytime soon, but it makes reading the code to determine where and what's going on a bit easier. -- You

Issue 3839 in reviewboard: Decorate email subjects with project name to allow email filtering

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium New issue 3839 by labor...@gmail.com: Decorate email subjects with project name to allow email filtering https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3839 I'm on a number of reviewboard groups and it is very difficult

Re: Issue 3753 in reviewboard: CRITICAL: lambda() keywords must be strings in RBTools 0.7.0

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Comment #3 on issue 3753 by mbea...@gmail.com: CRITICAL: lambda() keywords must be strings in RBTools 0.7.0 https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3753 I think this is caused by https://github.com/reviewboard/rbtools/commit/8c8e4eb7a64be3da8df833608dc6b4f95ccc03e0 with

Re: Issue 3795 in reviewboard: Redirected back to page 1 of diff when clicking a file link in a multi-page diff

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Comment #5 on issue 3795 by fearreal...@gmail.com: Redirected back to page 1 of diff when clicking a file link in a multi-page diff https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3795 As a follow-up I restored my Test Box back from a 2.0.12 backup and the problem is not there. I

Re: Issue 3841 in reviewboard: rbtools.api.request hardcodes http return codes

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Comment #1 on issue 3841 by yaneurab...@gmail.com: rbtools.api.request hardcodes http return codes https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3841 Here's another hardcoded instance.. 277 except HTTPError as e: 278 if e.code == 401: -- You received this

Issue 3842 in reviewboard: rbtools should use the requests module instead of depending on urllib to do things

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 3842 by yaneurab...@gmail.com: rbtools should use the requests module instead of depending on urllib to do things https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3842 What version are you running? 0.7.2 While

Re: Issue 3795 in reviewboard: Redirected back to page 1 of diff when clicking a file link in a multi-page diff

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Comment #4 on issue 3795 by fearreal...@gmail.com: Redirected back to page 1 of diff when clicking a file link in a multi-page diff https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3795 I'm running 2.0.15 . Is there something I can do manually to get the bug fixed? -- You received

Re: Issue 3841 in reviewboard: rbtools.api.request hardcodes http return codes

2015-04-09 Thread reviewboard
Comment #2 on issue 3841 by chip...@gmail.com: rbtools.api.request hardcodes http return codes https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3841 HTTP status codes aren't changing any time soon. I'm not sure this is worth changing. Particularly since those working on HTTP code