(daniel.j.la...@googlemail.com)
wrote:
All,
We are currently using post-review and Reviewboard 1.7.25 (RBtools 0.5.1).
We added a new Repo to Reviewboard and its listed as repository 26.
However when we try to post a new review to Reviewboard we get:
DEBUG:root:repository info: Path: http://server
All,
We are currently using post-review and Reviewboard 1.7.25 (RBtools 0.5.1).
We added a new Repo to Reviewboard and its listed as repository 26.
However when we try to post a new review to Reviewboard we get:
DEBUG:root:repository info: Path: http://server/svn/repo_name, Base path:
/trunk
Hello Christian,
Thanks for responding. The repository has a single CVSROOT directory,
inside /srv/cvs, along with all the modules, like so:
/srv/cvs
\- CVSROOT
\- productA
\- productB
Therefore I'm not sure how to create the entries for each CVSROOT as you
suggested.
On Friday, October
Hi Luiz,
Sounds like a configuration issue.
You should have a repository entry for every CVSROOT you're working with.
It sounds like you're instead creating one for the parent of the CVS
modules?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Bea
Hello!
I'm a little confused with the way Reviewboard works with a CVS repository.
The repository sits at /srv/cvs and there are a number of modules inside
it, one for each software my company develops; I'm planning to use
Reviewboard and automate review request creation for a couple of modules
Hey,
I'm trying to run ReviewBoard with clearcase, and I'm having trouble
uploading a diff to the website. I'm running reviewboard 1.7.14 and RBtools
0.5.2. Here is the message I'm getting when running post-review in debug
mode (pathnames and addresses replaced by Zs and hostname):
---
DE
sorry, introduced pdb.set_trace() by mistake into the patch, plz delete
this line, and use the patch as below:
diff --git a/reviewboard/scmtools/clearcase.py
b/reviewboard/scmtools/clearcase.py
index 19ea97f..35888e3 100644
--- a/reviewboard/scmtools/clearcase.py
+++ b/reviewboard/scmtools/clear
I found out that the cause, the problem is the code to call cleartool.exe
in reviewboard\scmtools\clearcase.py,
if add 'shell=True' paramter to all the subprocess.Popen(...), there will
no annoying console window pop up.
patch code as below:
diff --git a/reviewb
My Environment:
OS: Windows 7 32bit
Python: 2.7.3
Review Board: 1.7.2
Web Server: apache 2.2
Clearcase: clearcase 7.1.2
I setup a Review Board server on Windows 7, and encountered a very strange
problem,
each time when others doing post-review, viewing diff, etc,cmd console
window will prompt
Hi Dan,
What version of post-review are you using? The first thing it should do is
authenticate, so I don't know why you're hitting this. Many, many people
use post-review with private repos/groups/localsites, so there's some
specific issue here we need to track down.
Do you have a debug log from
I am using post-review to generate my diff requests and post them to my
reviewboard instance.
One of my SVN servers has restricted access, as such I mark it as non
publically accessible and add all the Users /Groups that can access it.
The problem is when I run post-review it fails to find the re
I just installed and tried this with all versin of RBTools from 2.0 to
4.1 and 3.3 seems to get it the most right but even that doesn't work
$ rm ~/.post-review-cookies.txt ; post-review
==> HTTP Authentication Required
Enter authorization information for "Development" at hostname
Username: josh
P
looks like I clipped the last line, reran and full output below.
$ post-review
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/bin/post-review", line 9, in
load_entry_point('RBTools==0.4.1', 'console_scripts', 'post-
review')()
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/RBTools-0.4.
The traceback seems to have been cut off. Do you have the last few lines?
-David
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Joshua Shanks wrote:
> If I turn off http auth around my install of review board post-review
> works just fine. If I turn it on no passing in of the --http-*
> parameters or settin
If I turn off http auth around my install of review board post-review
works just fine. If I turn it on no passing in of the --http-*
parameters or setting of HTTP_* in the .reviewboardrc file works and
always results in the exception listed below. I can do basic auth from
multiple browsers and logi
Hey Chris,
Thanks for your reply. By two-way, I mean that our RB instance
requires client authentication in order to access the site. We are
having problems figuring out if we can force python? to accept
our .pkcs12 information when using post-review.
Thanks in advance,
On Nov 29, 2:50 am, C
What do you mean two-way? You can definitely configure RB to use SSL
with post-review, if that's all you mean.
Chris
On Nov 23, 5:03 pm, Bradley wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> We are trying to use post-review to post to a two-way ssl protected RB
> instance. Possible?
>
> Using RB 1.6.1, apache/wsgi, Ub
Hey Guys,
We are trying to use post-review to post to a two-way ssl protected RB
instance. Possible?
Using RB 1.6.1, apache/wsgi, Ubuntu
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
-~-
There's work being done right now on allowing post-review to upload binary
files as attachments, and display them inline in the review request. It'd
then be possible to write some support for re-downloading those attachments.
It's possible it will land in a 1.6.x, but if not, then 1.7.
Christian
Is there a way to use post-review (or the API that post-review
implements) to submit arbitrary files alongside a diff?
I had a thought on how to solve two issues we have with using Review
Board on our git-based project.
The first issue is that the diff file uploaded to Review Board and the
diff f
Hi Reinhold,
Assuming all review requests will be made against the main repository, what
you want to do is have the Path be the anonymous URL, and then to have the
.reviewboardrc using the name you configure for the repository. This is done
with the REPOSITORY setting:
http://www.reviewboard.org/
I'm currently evaluating Reviewboard for use by lilypond, which uses the
gnu.org GIT server (savannah.gnu.org). Unfortunately, there are different git
URLs for anonymous access and for developers:
The anonymous GIT URL is:
git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git
The URL used by developers with pu
On Feb 17, 12:16 am, Christian Hammond wrote:
> I believe you can use --tracking-branch=yourremote/master for this.
Indeed, I can. I saw "branch" but it didn't occur to me that it'd
also take the entire remote ref.
Thank you very much.
>
> Christian
--
Want to help the Review Board project? D
I believe you can use --tracking-branch=yourremote/master for this.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:32 PM, cir.vfi wrote:
> Hello,
> is it possible to tell post-revi
Hello,
is it possible to tell post-review to use a different remote repo than
"origin". i have a case where I have a set of repos where origin is
not pointing to the same URL as the RB server, due to its being in
another continent and having slow links between sites. A debug
session follows. The
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
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
n older message about this topic where the poster worked around
the issue with a script that wrapped post-review and disabled/enabled the IE
proxy, but I didn't quite like that solution.
After reading some post-review and urllib source I found a new workaround.
Add the lines below to .reviewbo
n: P4D/LINUX26AMD64/2005.2.PATCH/100601 (2006/05/26)
> > >> > Server license: MyCompany Inc 17 users (support expired 2007/05/16)
>
> > >> > Thanks again!
>
> > >> > tony
>
> > >> > On Sep 16, 6:40 pm, Christian Hammond wrote:
&g
> > On Sep 16, 6:40 pm, Christian Hammond wrote:
> >> > > Hi Tony,
>
> >> > > We discourage running as root, so that wouldn't be it.
>
> >> > > It's likely that it's failing to parse the server version info. Can you
> >> &g
; > > Hi Tony,
>>
>> > > We discourage running as root, so that wouldn't be it.
>>
>> > > It's likely that it's failing to parse the server version info. Can you
>> > type
>> > > `p4 info` and show me the "Server version:" line,
; > > equivalent line on there.
>
> > > Christian
>
> > > --
> > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > > Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org
> > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
>
> > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at
here's an
> > equivalent line on there.
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > --
> > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org
> > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:2
eryone,
>
> > I'm trying to get ReviewBoard set up. Installing the server was no
> > problem, however I've been having issues with post-review and
> > perforce. I have two problems, the first is clearly a permission
> > problem, but I can't seem to find w
ReviewBoard set up. Installing the server was no
> problem, however I've been having issues with post-review and
> perforce. I have two problems, the first is clearly a permission
> problem, but I can't seem to find where the python files live to
> change them. I'm not sup
Hey everyone,
I'm trying to get ReviewBoard set up. Installing the server was no
problem, however I've been having issues with post-review and
perforce. I have two problems, the first is clearly a permission
problem, but I can't seem to find where the python files live to
change
r user tag_98007work.
>
> > > > > But, if you're on Windows (or potentially in some other
> > environments),
> > > > > you're quite possibly using a .egg/.exe "compiled" version of Review
> > > > > Board and therefore it may
icult to implement patches to the
> .py
> > > > Python source. If you use the interpreted version, then you can
> apply
> > > > the patch and things might work for you (if your environment is like
> > > > that of user tag_98007work )
> >
&g
patch and things might work for you (if your environment is like
> > > that of user tag_98007work )
>
> > > Does that seem to sum things up OK?
>
> > > Note that I don't see any of the problems described here, but I had to
> > > do the following to get
to get post-review to work for everyone:
> > 1 - Everyone has to have the following environment set: P4PORT, P4USER,
> > P4CLIENT (NOT P4PASSWD!)
> > 2 - Everyone has to be running P4V when they run post-review (I actually
> > added it as a tool to P4V so the users can right clic
en they run post-review (I actually
> added it as a tool to P4V so the users can right click on any changelist
> and hit "submit to reviewboard" and nobody needs to use a command
> line/shell command at all)
> With perforce 2009.2/2010.1 this works fine with no problems : the
&g
t "submit to reviewboard" and nobody needs to use a command
line/shell command at all)
With perforce 2009.2/2010.1 this works fine with no problems : the
ticket from P4V is visible to the p4 command line (called from
post-review) and everything's fine (this is using latest RBTools
ins
My head hurts... Perforce consistently gives me reasons to not like
it... Git can't come soon enough.
Thanks for trying, I appreciate it!
On Aug 25, 1:20 pm, tag_98007work wrote:
> hmm, at one point (I'm having issues and attmpting to re-install,
> whole 'nother story) my ReviewBoard-1.5rc1-py2
hmm, at one point (I'm having issues and attmpting to re-install,
whole 'nother story) my ReviewBoard-1.5rc1-py2.5.egg was a top level
directory. Under that was the scmtools directory. So I'm not quite
sure how to resolve that they egg isn't a directory.
On Aug 25, 1:11 pm, RShelley <12gaugeme...
I'm on Linux and I found the site-packages, but I don't have any
directories under it, just the eggs.
I also tried: find / -name perforce.py
and that didn't come up with anything
On Aug 25, 12:22 pm, tag_98007work wrote:
> It's located under reviewboard/scmtools. The full path for mine is: /
It's located under reviewboard/scmtools. The full path for mine is: /
usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5rc1-py2.5.egg/
reviewboard/scmtools. Obviously this is a Unix install. I'm not
quite sure where it would be for windows. Does that help?
On Aug 25, 11:50 am, RShelley <12gaugem
Where would perforce.py be located? I've hunted around and can't find
it.
On Aug 25, 9:28 am, tag_98007work wrote:
> I was having P4PASSWD issues until I patched the perforce.py file with
> the changes fromhttp://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1537/diff/. After I patched
> the file
> I restarted th
I was having P4PASSWD issues until I patched the perforce.py file with
the changes from
http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1537/diff/. After I patched the file
I restarted the server (don't know if that's needed or not)
On Aug 25, 8:56 am, RShelley <12gaugeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been strugg
I've been struggling recently getting post-review to pick up the
P4PASSWD properly. We have post-review as part of a script and we
first run "p4 login -p" to get a ticket and then put that ticket in
the environment. Subsequent "p4 describe -P "
commands work fine, but post-review gives the "P4PA
; or "filename" at all. So
How can I change the request's diff content with which I had got at the RB
Server side ?
Best Regards!
在2010-01-29?14:12:53，JohnHenry??写道：
>Hi,?all.
>?I?am?using?reviewboard?1.0.5.1;?Now?I?had?to?change?post-review
>and?reviewboard?so
Hi, all.
I am using reviewboard 1.0.5.1; Now I had to change post-review
and reviewboard so that post-review will not upload diff file,
instead , it give file versions to ReviewBoard, So that Reviewbaord
can run "cvs diff -uN -r " command to generate diff file by it self.
Curre
This is exactly what I needed. Thank you!
On Jan 8, 6:11 pm, Christian Hammond wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Try the latest nightly of RBTools. I believe it will let you do that. Run:
> post-review default
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.o
Hi,
Try the latest nightly of RBTools. I believe it will let you do that. Run:
post-review default
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:38 AM, prestomation wrote:
> Hi. We
Hi. We've started using RB at my company with Perforce and I have a
quick question.
Is there a way to post a diff from the default changelist using post-
review?
Thanks in advance.
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us
prestomation wrote:
> I am currently demo'ing review board to interface with our Perforce
> server.
> I seems that using post-review with a command like the following:
>
> post-review --username=USERNAME --server=reviewboard 65428
>
> tries to access the api at a subfolder with the same name as the
Hi,
I am currently demo'ing review board to interface with our Perforce
server.
I seems that using post-review with a command like the following:
post-review --username=USERNAME --server=reviewboard 65428
tries to access the api at a subfolder with the same name as the
servers name itself, so in
Hi Christian,
thanks for your reply and good to hear that --parent is now also
supported for mercurial. However, it doesn't seem to work for me.
Although the option is accepted, post-review fails to upload the
diff. A log of my experiments is below. Maybe, I just didn't do it
right.
Hi,
We just made a release of RBTools late last night (early this morning?) that
should provide the --parent option to Mercurial. I don't use Mercurial
personally so I don't know what the limitations are, but you might want to
try upgrading and giving it a try.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond -
Hi all,
the documentation of post-review mentions the --parent option for
distributed version control systems, but it also says that it
currently doesn't work for mercurial. Is there a time line when this
will be available, or even already a development version?
I am aware of the review b
On Tuesday 15 September 2009 12:44:26 Christian Hammond wrote:
> You'll need the nightly of RBTools (instructions below), or generate a diff
> manually with `git diff --full-index`.
Done, thanks a lot!
http://reviews.review-board.org/r/1049/
Cheers
Flavio
--~--~-~--~~~--
You'll need the nightly of RBTools (instructions below), or generate a diff
manually with `git diff --full-index`.
To get the nightly:
easy_install -f http://downloads.review-board.org/nightlies -U RBTools
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.review-bo
On Tuesday 15 September 2009 12:11:00 Christian Hammond wrote:
> Please submit code changes up on http://reviews.review-board.org/.
I have selected RBTools as repository but I get this error message when I try
to upload the diff:
The file 'rbtools/postreview.py' (r2e2518f) could not be found in
Please submit code changes up on http://reviews.review-board.org/.
Thanks,
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.review-board.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Flavio Castelli
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 09 Septembe
On Wednesday 09 September 2009 20:25:45 Dan Savilonis wrote:
> The currently released version of post-review is limited to very basic
> git functionality. You can't specify an arbitrary revision range. You
> can try my updated version here and see how it works:
>
> http://github.com/djs/rbtools/tr
You can also grab a nightly with:
easy_install -f http://downloads.review-board.org/nightlies/ -U RBTools
We'll put out a new release before too long. Family emergencies has delayed
this quite a bit.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.review-boar
The currently released version of post-review is limited to very basic
git functionality. You can't specify an arbitrary revision range. You
can try my updated version here and see how it works:
http://github.com/djs/rbtools/tree/postreview-git
Alternatively, you can always execute an arbitrary
I have some problems trying to create reviews of already committed
code. I'm using git as VCS and I have followed these instructions:
http://www.review-board.org/docs/manual/dev/users/tools/post-review/#posting-committed-code
When I call post-review I get an error message:
post-review --revision-
You are right Dan, post-review script isn't working. I really don't
need it cause I'm working with mercurial and postreview extension, but
I have a pretty standard setup(ubuntu 9.04 and so on) so if you want
take me to debug I will do what you need to get the problem solved.
Cheers
Frank Abel
On
Hmm, well the original debug output you posted indicated that it never
even got far enough to try to contact the server. If the mercurial
extension is now working, that's great, but it would be good to know
the post-review script is working as well.
Dan
On Jul 23, 3:20 pm, frankabel wrote:
> On
On Jul 20, 12:59 pm, Dan Savilonis wrote:
> Friendly reminder: please don't post passwords or other sensitive
> information on the mailing list.
Thanks, but is just a test server and an inutile pass, strong? yes,
seem that my finger can't type a weak pass :)
>
> What's happening is that it's
Friendly reminder: please don't post passwords or other sensitive
information on the mailing list.
What's happening is that it's falling through mercurial detection into
clearcase, and it fails to detect any vcs. It will test for a
mercurial-svn repository first, so you should expect that to fail
Hi Christian!
First at all thanks for your reply.
Here the command with --debug and yes, "hg" is in my path, I type hg
and all if fine(I have hg installed using distro binaries, ubuntu 9.04
in my case), I even type "hg root" and all is fine, but what I see is
that "svn"(see below) isn't a hg com
Hi Frank,
It seems the line numbers have changed quite a bit between that version and
SVN HEAD, but the first thing to check is that hg is in your path.
If you run with --debug, you'll get more information about what command it's
trying to execute.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chip
Hi all,
Here what I get while trying uses post-review command inside a
mercurial repo:
$ post-review --server=https://frankabel.cujae.edu.cu/reviewboard/
reviewboard/ --username=frankabel --password=PpMeOv606 --revision-
range=35:38
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/bin/post
Are you using post-review on a regular git repository? The check is
there to determine if it is a git-svn repository (git repository that
synchronizes with svn). I think it needs to come first because you
can't directly check that a repository is pure git. Since git-svn is a
perl script, I imagine
I use the diff upload form when I want to make a more complex diff. I
added the current simple support for git just so something was
available but it needs a lot more flexibility to really follow the
distributed spirit.
I think it might be better to take whatever git diff will take, so I
can spec
That was precisely the problem! Thanks! (And I am looking forward to
the .exe being included in the next release!)
On Jul 9, 3:49 pm, Christian Hammond wrote:
> Oh, did you run py2exe on the post-review that was in the path, or the one
> that was in the RBTools*.egg/scripts directory? The one
Oh, did you run py2exe on the post-review that was in the path, or the one
that was in the RBTools*.egg/scripts directory? The one installed in the
Python scripts directory is just a wrapper for the one in the egg. What's
likely happening is that you're running it on the wrong script, and it's
stil
I did use easy_install to set up RBTools. I unzipped the egg because
someone in the earlier thread pointed out that py2exe couldn't handle
zipped .egg files, so they had to be unzipped before trying to create
an executable. My install and use of the post-review script works
fine, but I want to c
Rather than unzipping the egg, you really should be using easy_install (part
of Python setuptools, which there's a Windows installer for). This will
register the RBTools distribution entry.
The next version of RBTools will provide a post-review.exe automatically on
Windows.
Christian
--
Christi
Hi,
I have installed a demo of ReviewBoard for my company to evaluate, but
I am having trouble with compiling post-review into an .exe as
described in http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard/
browse_thread/thread/d8595a6ab0b2ca56/5d9bf8331629aa4c?
lnk=gst&q=py2exe#">this thread. While my Pytho
Hi,
Using post-review feels like it is a bit slower than necessary, and
when using the --debug flag, it seems as if one of the main culprits
is the execution of 'git svn info'. It takes several seconds to run
for me. I am guessing it is used for 'git on top of SVN'? Would it be
possible/reasonabl
Despite not being a Python programmer, I found out through looking at
the code that there does seem to be a requirement that you compare
against the master branch. I've been able to change that, so we should
be able to proceed. The solution we preferred involves two arguments
that we called 'new'
Hi,
I'm trying to figure out how to set up Review Board for usage within
our organisation. We're using Git for SCM, so the Git support in RB is
one of the things that made me want to take a closer look. However,
I'm having some problems in understanding how to get going. It seems
from the documen
h should be the HEAD at
> the time of this writing.
>
> On Jun 5, 1:07 pm, "h...@pbrfrat.com"
> wrote:
>
> > I am using git-p4 to use git to communicate with a perforce
> > repository.
>
> > so when I use post-review, it detects th
y, and not the
> perforce one. Is there a way I can override the repository detection
> stuff in post-review and force it to use perforce?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"reviewboard&quo
I am using git-p4 to use git to communicate with a perforce
repository.
so when I use post-review, it detects the git repository, and not the
perforce one. Is there a way I can override the repository detection
stuff in post-review and force it to use perforce
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 17:48, Manny Rodriques
wrote:
> David,
> It is pretty simple to add a context menu item that will launch a
> command. The attached registry file will add a right-click menu item for
> folders in windows explorer that will launch a command window and run
> post-review .
David,
It is pretty simple to add a context menu item that will launch a
command. The attached registry file will add a right-click menu item for
folders in windows explorer that will launch a command window and run
post-review . This obviously has several limitations as it
is just for folders
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 22:53, Christian Hammond wrote:
> We would love this too, and we're hoping to get some student proposals from
> Summer of Code that would begin adding better integration on Windows (namely
> in IDEs, but some of this would likely require better hooks for post-review
> in W
We would love this too, and we're hoping to get some student proposals from
Summer of Code that would begin adding better integration on Windows (namely
in IDEs, but some of this would likely require better hooks for post-review
in Windows).
David Trowbridge and myself (the main developers on the
Something which appears frequently here is "you should really be using
post-review". At the moment, this is a bad answer, because there is no
usable Windows GUI that does post-review.
First, let me give you some of my background. I am
Linux-Emacs-Python-Bazaar kind of programmer. I worked for sev
I'd love to do that. Before beta 1, I'm moving post-review to an rbtools
package, which will be easy_installable. For now, it's just going to be
post-review, but I hope to use that as a breeding ground for new utility
apps and ideally a common API.
I have an old branch where I started work on the
Has anyone thought about breaking post-review up into smaller pieces
(modules) so that other code could reuse the diffing and JSON API support?
I imagine splitting it up into a package (with each SCM in a separate
file) and bundling the whole thing as an egg should still make it fairly
easy to dis
94 matches
Mail list logo
