| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This change introduces Repository UUID support to git-svn, allowing
Review Board to match repositories by UUID instead of comparing the
repository name directly.
Patch by Matthew Woehlke.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/1030/
|
|
|
|
|
|
improperly check for the os.uname function.
Fixes bug #1280.
|
|
This introduces a new column, raw_file_url, to Repository, and shows it in the
admin UI for SCMTools that support it. This URL provides a way for certain
SCMTools (right now, Git only) to access files over HTTP, instead of checking
the file out through the SCM or accessing it locally (in the case of Git).
The raw file URL acts as a URL with fields to be substituted. If <revision>
exists in the URL, it will be replaced with the revision of the file. If
<filename> exists, it will be replaced with the filename.
This also adds a GitHub hosting service and bug tracker to the Repository
admin. Using this, it's trivial to add any GitHub project without knowing the
raw file URL mask.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/977/
|
|
Corrected hgsubversion support for more recent versions of hgsubversion and add
support for parent branch, guess summary, and guess description. Patch from
Augie Fackler.
Testing done:
Been using it for over a week, haven't seen any major issues.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/842/
|
|
When a binary file differed, post-review would miss printing a newline after
"Binary Files differ", making the diff invalid for the subsequent file. This
would cause that file's diff to be lost silently when parsed by reviewboard on
the server side. Patch from Chris Trimble.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/915/
|
|
Solaris has BSD "diff" and GNU "gdiff". Since we use things which are only
present in the GNU userland, we should account for that. This change checks for
SunOS in the output of os.uname and uses gdiff if necessary.
|
|
SCMClients, which makes it easier to update and maintain.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/882/
|
|
post-review.exe) wrapping it. The official way to install post-review now is by
installing RBTools.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/916/
|
|
simplejson is now part of the Python standard library, but it's named
'json'. This change alters post-review to use it if it's available,
which reduces the amount of stuff people have to install (if they have
Python 2.6+)
Committing on behalf of David.
Reviewed http://reviews.review-board.org/r/887/
|
|
|
|
the first time. This was broken in r1986.
|
|
Fixes bug #1143.
|
|
spaces.
Fixes bug #840.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/815/
|
|
newlines, translating them to \r\n. This can happen in some Perforce
setups when dealing with a file checked out from one platform and
modified on another, for example.
Fixes bug #1071.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/826/
|
|
|
|
prevent entering an infinite loop. This can happen when the cookie is
assumed to be valid but doesn't work properly on the server. While this
won't fix logins in that situation, it will prevent the infinite loop
followed by a "maximum recursion deptch" error.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/879/
|
|
"hg svn" works. Otherwise it assumes the repository is hg-svn.
|
|
installed. We now properly do a check_install on "clearcase help".
|
|
file path using a "/" instead of "\" on Windows.
This fixes bug #939.
|
|
when using Perforce. This method doesn't take a change number, but
rather a set of files and optional revisions. His documentation states:
"We have some use cases where it would be nice to review entire files
post-commit in reviewboard. Some examples:
- Our documentation needs to be checked in before it is reviewed. If multiple
people are working on it, or if it is created as a series of multiple
checkins, reviewing specific change numbers is difficult. With this, we can
do "post-review //docs/main/some/project/...".
- If you work on a side branch for a while, possibly with multiple checkins or
with multiple people, reviewing the changes on the side branch before
integration to the main branch can be tricky. With this, you can now do
"post-review //path/to/my/branch/...@100,@120" where "100" would be the
initial revision that created the branch and "120" is the last revision on
that branch. This allows you to easily review all changes on a branch in one
review request.
- If you want to review an old, existing file that has had little or no
reviews, you can now do this with "post-review //path/to/some/file" to review
the whole thing.
The specific path types supported are:
post-review //path/to/file
# Upload file as a "new" file.
post-review //path/to/dir/...
# Upload all files as "new" files.
post-review //path/to/file[@#]rev
# Upload file from that rev as a "new" file.
# (Not a very useful scenario, but it works.)
post-review //path/to/file[@#]rev,[@#]rev
# Upload a diff between revs.
post-review //path/to/dir/...[@#]rev,[@#]rev
# Upload a diff of all files between revs in that directory.
You can specify multiple paths on the command line. I didn't use the range
revision option because the Perforce path syntax is a little more flexible,
especially if you post multiple paths.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/753/
|
|
post-review with invalid cookies.
Fixes bug #808.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/813/
|
|
|
|
|
|
directory.
Fixes bug #996.
|
|
|
|
when using post-review.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/787/
Fixes bug #585
|
|
Since the dawn of time, post-review has lived in the Review Board tree, despite being a client script and not necessarily being needed on the server.
This moves post-review into a new rbtools package, which users will be able to easy_install (easy_install -U RBTools). The simplejson dependency will be fetched, and users won't have to go hunting in SVN for a script.
Over time, I'd like to add new scripts into here (such as one to apply a diff from a review request), and further down the road I'd like to create an "rbapi" (or something) package that contains a Python API for talking to a Review Board server, which rbtools (and post-review) will then use. For now, the goal is to just get post-review moved over.
Reviewed at http://reviews.review-board.org/r/788/
|
