Hi Jonathan,
We don’t currently have support for reviewing rendered HTML, at least not
in any ideal way. This is mostly because of the security issues involved
with hosting user-provided HTML content.
We do offer the ability to download the file, view it locally in your
browser, and write a file-
We're evaluating code review tools and trying to determine if we use a
documentation tool such as madcap flare which produces HTML output, can we
view the rendered HTML within your code review tool? Trying to find a way
to review the rendered output so that it is reader friendly vs the markup
Hi,
You can use a pre-commit hook for the Subversion repository to enforce
changes to be reviewed before they're allowed in. There's no official one
yet, but we're planning to ship some new hooks as part of the next release
of RBTools.
Basically, you'd write a pre-commit hook that grabs the revie
So I am setting up review board for myself and my team. We work with a self
hosted svn repository. Earlier I have worked with gerrit and git. I loved how
gerrit allowed control over the repository and all commits had to be reviewed,
but yet so easy to merge. Was wondering if you guys could help
hi
I am working in a small team of 4 people where every one is checking in
code and its happening at a fast pace . We want an open source tool which
generates review requests when ever some one does a perforce checkin and
emails it to all the people . Can I run tool review board on a standalone
Hi,
I am using Reviewboard from bitnami in my local machine where my git
repository is located under user TEST.
When I am adding git repository it says local git path is not accessible.
I am sure it is permission issue but I have a doubt.
When I am checking out local copy of git repo should I
It looks like --parent works.
Not sure what I did before, but when I reran a test based on a series of
changes to a single test file, the diffs come out as expected. I didn't try
file deletions/additions just changes within a single file:
- Created a file with three lines
line1
line2
line3
1. interesting. I tried "parent" but it didn't seem to work the way I
expected. It should compare the current revision with the parent revision,
but didn't seem to do that. I suspect I probably did not set up the test
correctly. In any case, I'll give it another try.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:01
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying two things:
1. As a new changeset is created by the developer, the developer will update
the review request to be based at the same original revision but with the
set of changesets under review including all of the original changesets
under review +
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Schwartz wrote:
> - have a "rollup" mechanism. As the additional revisions are added, the
> changes are rolled up into one aggregate diff. (I assume this would be very
> complicated code and so might not be doable without significant risk)
>
> What do you
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:28 PM, J Arrizza wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I am still new to RB, and we are looking for something similar as well. We
> have an SCR in our defect tracking system that aggregates all work for
> change. Developers create a series of changesets and then tag each of those
> with
Andrew,
I am still new to RB, and we are looking for something similar as well. We
have an SCR in our defect tracking system that aggregates all work for
change. Developers create a series of changesets and then tag each of those
with the SCR. When it's time to do a code review, we'd like to have
I think that what I'm talking about is the same thing that Eduardo called
"Remodelling diff versioning". Does that seem right to you?
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Schwartz wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Sorry for letting this thread slide for so long.
>
> I'm talking about a review reques
Christian,
Sorry for letting this thread slide for so long.
I'm talking about a review request being for a series of changesets. In our
case, we often will split a single feature change into small, easily
reviewed changesets. It would be nice to be able to put all of these
changesets into a sin
I'm not sure I fully understand the functionality you're asking for, Andrew.
Are we just talking about creating new diffs to replace the old ones? Isn't
that what we have today? Are you asking for that + branch tracking?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://
Andrew,
I'm afraid that won't be possible with the code I'm writing. I'm
basing this on a post-commit style of review. In this scenario, you
would write a new commit E that fixes the issues mentioned on the
review, instead of rewriting the patches.
The model you are suggesting is harder to do on
N
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Eduardo Felipe
wrote:
> Sure!
>
> I am working on making the support for DVCS better by implementing the
> following:
>
> Remote branch tracking:
>
> Based on the notion of feature branches one could build around the
> notion of long lived reviews that could be
Sure!
I am working on making the support for DVCS better by implementing the
following:
Remote branch tracking:
Based on the notion of feature branches one could build around the
notion of long lived reviews that could be updated as the code is
updated, all in the Web UI, without having to post
Eduardo, can you give a summary of what you're working on?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Andrew wrote:
> Hi all. Please let me know what's going on with DV
Hi all. Please let me know what's going on with DVCS and Review
Board. I know that there are ways to make it work (as we are in my
organization), but it would be nice for it to be better integrated in
the project with reviewing multiple changesets, etc. Thanks.
On Jul 20, 5:40 pm, Andrew wrote
I'm wondering if there has been any progress on the DVCS front. I'd
be very interested in the current design. Is one of the GSOC students
actively working on this?
On Jun 2, 6:08 pm, Christian Hammond wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Today, each logical change is meant to have its own review request. If
Hi James,
Today, each logical change is meant to have its own review request. If you
have three things that are related but are separately worked on, each should
be put up for review separately. There's no notion of a review request that
encompasses several different changes. I personally think th
Hi, all,
My team now is using the ReviewBoard-1.0.6 which is running on the Cent-OS
server. And this is really fantastic software which help us a lot for code
review.
However, we also found some troubles when doing review.
First, In our project, we need to update the code in more than one compo
As Christian pointed out, this is more of a process issue.
At my work, we have a similar process. Every developer work on a
branch and checks in code to the branch. At some suitable time the
code is integrated to the mainline. Checkins to the trunk needs
permissions through perforce ACLs.
-Raghu
Hi Chris,
Review Board doesn't have any way of preventing code from being checked in.
As H M said, you'll need a pre-commit hook for this. I think there's one on
http://reviews.review-boardorg/ somewhere. At some point we may bundle and
document one, but not until we have a solid concept of policy
Chris wrote:
> Also unless code has been given the OK i dont want it to get into
> trunk, is this possible? i.e. can we stop people committing to trunk,
> or is that more something we need to deal with at a people level not
> an automation level
I don't think this is done out of the box. At least
This discussion was moved from another one that was about windows
installs.
I was hoping to use review board as such:
The main development trunk is stable.
We want to add something new, so a developer takes a branch to work in
leaving trunk alone.
Once the developer is happy with their work then
27 matches
Mail list logo
