Is there any way to set up Subversion credentials

[Eric Smalling]

Trying this out on my own environment against an private Subversion
repo that requires credentials to read. I don't see any way to
specify them for either the repo or in a created issue. Am I missing
something or is that just not yet supported?

[Raghuram Devarakonda]

AFAICT, there is no way to pass credentials. The recommended method is
to use upload.py which uploads the base file as well as the diff to
the server thus obviating the need for server to fetch the base file.

Thanks,
Raghu

[Eric Smalling]

Tried that, but the "side by side" view still requires svn server
access for some reason.

[Andi Albrecht]

The side-by-side view requires credentials if you upload a patch using
the web form. If you use upload.py as Raghu suggested (without the
--download-base option) there's no need to access the restricted
repository from the review server.

Andi

2009/4/28, Eric Smalling <eric.s...@gmail.com>:

[Eric Smalling]

So I've gotten conflicting answers and, in my test, neither work. I
hacked the code (using http://chillorb.com/?p=195 as a guide) and got
it to work.

Before I continue playing with it though, I think I've hit a wall that
is due to my own miss-understanding of the Google App Engine Runtime.
It appears that you cannot host this app on a personal server for your
team hit without using the public Google cloud servers. Unless I'm
mistaken, there's no way to tell the Engine Launcher to bind anything
but "localhost". Am I wrong?

If I'm right then I guess I keep looking at other tools as we cannot
host our company code reviews on the web.

[Mark Roddy]

You can always expose it to your coworkers using apache and
mod_proxy. Though I wouldn't recommend this unless you're only
exposing it to a local intranet.

-Mark

On Apr 28, 6:29 pm, Eric Smalling <eric.small...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I've gotten conflicting answers and, in my test, neither work.  I

> hacked the code (usinghttp://chillorb.com/?p=195as a guide) and got

[Raghuram Devarakonda]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Eric Smalling <eric.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I'm right then I guess I keep looking at other tools as we cannot
> host our company code reviews on the web.

Even though Rietveld is designed for Google App Engine (and hence
requires to be run on Google's App Engine infrastructure), there are
ways to run it locally. Please see the following article:
http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/pure_django.html

[Eric Smalling]

Thank you immensely! I will try it out immediately.

[Eric Smalling]

Hmmm. Running into the problem reported here: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/10786

Not being a Python programmer, I'm muddling through - it seems to
indicate the use of BooleanField should be replaced with
NullBooleanField

[Andi Albrecht]

I wasn't aware of this bug. The right place to report bugs about
Rietveld on pure Django is the project's issue tracker:
http://code.google.com/p/django-gae2django/issues/

ATM it should work with Django 1.0.

Andi

>
> >
>

[Andi Albrecht]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Andi Albrecht
<albrec...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Eric Smalling <eric.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm. Running into the problem reported here: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/10786
>>
>> Not being a Python programmer, I'm muddling through - it seems to
>> indicate the use of BooleanField should be replaced with
>> NullBooleanField

Should be fixed now ;-)