> Can you tell me more about your setup (server-side)? In particular:
>
> * OS/distro
> * Review Board version
> * Memory
> * CPU
> * Python version
Sure, here is our server data:
CentOS 5.5
ReviewBoard 1.5
Memory 2GB
3.06GHz Intel Xeon
Python 2.4.3
> Strange. When this happens, can yo
We are looking at updating to use Reviewboard 1.5.3 and RbTools
0.3.1. In my test environment I noticed that changes that were
previously posted using post-review from RbTools 0.2.0 failed with the
error below.
...
>>> Got API Error 105 (HTTP code 400): One or more fields had errors
>>> Error da
Yeah, noticed that.. Hoping to get a patch out today that people can test.
Sorry about that :/
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:56 AM, mm wrote:
> We are looking at up
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Alfred von Campe wrote:
> > If I had some source file and diff that I could use to test against, that
> would greatly help. I realize that may be difficult, though.
>
> I may be able to arrange that. Do you need just the source file/diffs that
> it is stuck on or t
I'm trialling Reviewboard for my organisation and my workgroup. I've
successfully used "post-review" to create review-requests on my
reviewboard installation on Win32 and integrating with SVN.
My team follows a pattern of numerous small checkins for completion of
a story. Even for a small team thi
Hi Martin.
You can't, really. You will have to have a review request per consecutive
range. It doesn't really make sense otherwise, since we have to literally
apply those changes and then show what happened between the two ends of the
range. Having holes in that range doesn't mean anything useful.
