Re: Unable to view SVN diff after migration from 1.7.x to 2.0.1

Hi Erik, Would you be able to attach a diff that reproduces this problem? We’ll take a look at it for 2.0.2. Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On June 4, 2014 at 11:50:56 AM, Erik Latti

Re: Incremental index bug after upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0?

Hi Bruce, That’s pretty slow. I think I know why. I’m looking into fixes for 2.0.2. Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On June 4, 2014 at 3:37:22 PM, Bruce Cran (bruce.c...@gmail.com) wro

Git issue in RBTools0.5.7 and RB1.7.7.1

Hi Team, We are migrating to RBtools0.5.7 from RBTools.0.4.3, We got a issue where description of Review request is not getting updated with -g option in some cases: 1) One difference I see now is earlier we used to refer to most recent commit with HEAD~1 and now it's represented by HEAD.

rebuild_index destroys reviewboard site

Hello all, since upgrading to RB2.0 and then RB2.0.1 my reviewboard stopped working periodically. Luckily, as far as I can tell, no information was lost. Today I found the culprit: a line in crobtab doing a full reindex. Here is some command line log to show the problem. stbohne@sentec116:~$ l

Re: Review Board Installation: Bad Request (400)

Hi Christian Hammond, I am already using mod_wsgi. On Thursday, June 5, 2014 12:04:09 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote: > > This looks like an issue with mod_python, rather than Review Board. > > I strongly recommend switching your setup to use mod_wsgi instead. > mod_python is deprecated an

Re: Review Board Installation: Bad Request (400)

Okay. Most of that log is showing mod_python-related output. Perhaps try uninstalling it. Can you provide your Apache configuration for the site? Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On Ju

Re: error: Could not find suitable distribution for Requirement.parse('Whoosh')

Hi Christian, Thanks for the response. If I access http://pypi.python.org/simple/Whoosh/ through browser, it displays a list of valid download links. I also tried to download an egg file from http://pypi.python.org/simple/Whoosh/ through Linux terminal using wget command and the download was

Re: rebuild_index destroys reviewboard site

Your search index directory appears to be wrong: it should be something like /var/www/reviews/search-index/ and not the root directory. -- Bruce On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Stefan Bohne < stefan.bo...@sentec-elektronik.de> wrote: Hello all, > > since upgrading to RB2.0 and then RB2.0.1 my

Re: rebuild_index destroys reviewboard site

That was it. No idea how that happened. Thanks a lot. Stefan Am Donnerstag, 5. Juni 2014 10:55:35 UTC+2 schrieb Bruce Cran: > > Your search index directory appears to be wrong: it should be something > like /var/www/reviews/search-index/ and not the root directory. > > -- > Bruce > > > On Thu,

Re: Incremental index bug after upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0?

Hi Bruce, If you would like to hand-apply a patch, I’d love to see how this affects your performance: https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/5935/ It should make a noticeable difference. Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, I

Re: error: Could not find suitable distribution for Requirement.parse('Whoosh')

Did you install the Whoosh egg that you downloaded? Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On June 5, 2014 at 1:14:04 AM, Shubha (shubhapriya.panandi...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi Christian, Thank

Re: Review Board Installation: Bad Request (400)

Hi Christian, Please find site configuration file attached here. Thanks Kuldeep On Thursday, June 5, 2014 1:41:22 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote: > > Okay. Most of that log is showing mod_python-related output. Perhaps try > uninstalling it. > > Can you provide your Apache configuration

Re: Git issue in RBTools0.5.7 and RB1.7.7.1

Hi Satish, Is there a reason you’re moving to 0.5.7 and not 0.6? We changed how all this works and have significantly improved revision selection and the extraction of summaries and descriptions. I think you’ll have much more luck with 0.6. There won’t be any further 0.5.x releases from here on

Re: Review Board Installation: Bad Request (400)

Thanks. Do you have anything else running on that Apache? If you disable mod_python, restart Apache, and try again to connect, do you see any new errors in the error_log? Are there any access attempts in access_log? Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - htt

Re: Review Board Installation: Bad Request (400)

Hi Christian , No I don't have anything running on apache2. When I hit url following logs created. *error.log:[Thu Jun 05 15:34:33 2014] [notice] caught SIGTERM, shutting down[Thu Jun 05 15:34:34 2014] [notice] Apache/2.2.22 (Ubuntu) mod_wsgi/3.3 Python/2.7.3 configured -- resuming norma

Re: Git issue in RBTools0.5.7 and RB1.7.7.1

Is it safe to move on from using rbt 0.5.7 to 0.6 while not upgrading RB 1.7.25 to 2.0RC? Does the former step require the latter one? On Thursday, June 5, 2014 11:30:52 AM UTC+2, Christian Hammond wrote: > > Hi Satish, > > Is there a reason you’re moving to 0.5.7 and not 0.6? We changed how all

Re: Git issue in RBTools0.5.7 and RB1.7.7.1

Yep, it’ll be safe. RBTools 0.6 is compatible with Review Board 1.7.x (and in fact was released and being used before 2.0 was released). Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On June 5, 2014

Re: ReviewBoard 2.0.1 and Subversion - API Error 207

Uninstalling subvertpy and installing PySVN worked a charm. I had to edit scmtools/svn/__init__.py to remove the attempt to load subvertpy (it kept "finding" it, even though it was uninstalled), but then it was fine. Thank you very much! On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:50:56 UTC+1, Christian Hammo

Re: Incremental index bug after upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0?

Hi Christian, It reduced rebuild_index to around 15 minutes and update_index to 20: user@host:~$ sudo time rb-site manage /var/www/reviews rebuild_index ... All documents removed. Indexing 23550 review requests 443.30user 15.45system 8:07.01elapsed 94%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1655104maxresident)k 0

Re: Incremental index bug after upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0?

That’s better, but not good enough. Patch your install with this (on top of the existing patch): https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/5937/ Then pass —age. Something like —age=10 (hours) will be fine to test with. It should only re-index review requests updated in the past 10 hours. Christian --

Re: Review Board Installation: Bad Request (400)

What Linux distro is this? Something is badly misconfigured or broken somewhere below the Review Board level. Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On June 5, 2014 at 3:08:15 AM, Kuldeep sin

Re: Incremental index bug after upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0?

I don't seem to have access to that review. -- Bruce On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Christian Hammond wrote: > That’s better, but not good enough. > > Patch your install with this (on top of the existing patch): > > https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/5937/ > -- Get the Review Board Power Pa

Re: Incremental index bug after upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0?

It would probably be helpful if I published it… Try now :) Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On June 5, 2014 at 1:00:25 PM, Bruce Cran (bruce.c...@gmail.com) wrote: I don't seem to have

Re: Incremental index bug after upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0?

That's much better! With "rb-site manage /var/www/reviews update_index -- --age=1" it just takes a few seconds to run. -- Bruce On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Christian Hammond wrote: > It would probably be helpful if I published it… > > Try now :) > > Christian > > -- > Christian Hammond -

Using rbt post to review topmost patch of mq series

In 1.7, it was possible to generate a review request of the topmost changeset patch1 - e.g.: > hg qapplied patch1 patch2 patch3 patch4 ... by creating a diff of patch2-patch4 and uploading it via the web interface as the parent diff. How do I do the same in 2.x using 'rbt post'? Uploading the to

Re: Using rbt post to review topmost patch of mq series

I don’t know of anything on the RB side that would have changed here. It should just accept what’s given by the client. Were you able to do it before with RBTools? If you’re just trying to post the top-most commit, then (at least with Git) you’d do:     $ rbt post HEAD Replace HEAD with whate

Re: Using rbt post to review topmost patch of mq series

I don't know if it used to work with RBTools, but people have said it used to work with 'hg postreview -m qparent'. Running 'rbt post tip' or 'rbt post --parent=qparent tip' results in Review Board saying it can't display the diff where there are changes in a file which also has changes in other pa

Re: Extensions with Custom Fields

Thanks Christian! I appreciate it! On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 10:47:20 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > Looks like you set ‘fieldset_id’ and not ‘field_id’, which would cause > this problem. > > Christian > > -- > Christian Hammond - chri...@beanbaginc.com > Review Board - ht

Re: CRITICAL: tuple index out of range error with RBTools 0.6 and Mercurial

Hello again, I tried: rbt post --tracking-branch=default and came up with the same error. I will try to take a bit of a deeper look as to what may be going on with Mercurial. On the same test machine that I am using, Subversion works without any problems. If I discover the reason, I will be

Re: Review Board Installation: Bad Request (400)

Hi Christian, First I want to say thanks for taking much interest in my problem. I am providing all the things i did for reviewboard installation. *Os: Ubuntu 12.04.4 LTS (GNU/Linux 3.5.0-23-generic x86_64)* This was a fresh machine when I started installation. I installed following things;

Re: Review Board Installation: Bad Request (400)

When you ran ‘rb-site install’, you specified a site root as ‘/‘, but you’re attempting to access as ‘/reviews.com’. It needs to be one or the other, or it wouldn’t work. I’m also wondering if you should just leave out the ‘.com’ from any subdirectory, in case Apache’s being overly protective w

Re: Review Board Installation: Bad Request (400)

I reinstalled, with "Root Path = /reviews/" and dropped ".com" form directory. But still same problem. *http://192.168.206.24/reviews * Kuldeep On Friday, June 6, 2014 10:16:54 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote: > > When you ran ‘rb-site install’, you specif