Re: Review Board 1.7.9 is released

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 06/04/2013 09:19 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 09:15 AM, victoria wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Stephen Gallagher
>> <ste...@gallagherhome.com <mailto:ste...@gallagherhome.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/04/2013 05:47 AM, Christian Hammond wrote:
>> > On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Stephen Gallagher
>> <ste...@gallagherhome.com <mailto:ste...@gallagherhome.com>
>> > <mailto:ste...@gallagherhome.com
>> <mailto:ste...@gallagherhome.com>>> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tuesday, June 4, 2013, pfee wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Christian, Stephen,
>> >>
>> >> While testing Stephen's Fedora packages, on a F18 machine I
>> >> upgraded from 1.7.7.1 to 1.7.9. Following the upgrade, I
>> expected
>> >> visiting the site's /dashboard URL would have told me to run
>> >> "rb-site upgrade". Instead I got a 500 "Something broke..."
>> message.
>> >>
>> >> Despite not being prompted, I ran "rb-site upgrade
>> >> /var/www/reviewboard" anyway. The site came back to life and
>> >> started working again as expected, however someone upgrading for
>> >> the first time would not know to do this.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ah, thanks for reminding me. Not that anyone actually reads the
>> >> updates notes, but I usually put a reminder in that you always
>> need to
>> >> run rb-site upgrade after installing the packages. I'll tweak the
>> >> update notes when I get to work.
>> >>
>> >> I've been meaning to patch the Fedora packages to do this
>> >> automatically, by having rb-site install save a config file with a
>> >> list of installed sites so I can have the %post script run the
>> upgrade
>> >> on package install.
>> >
>> > I've actually been wanting such a file for Review Board upstream that
>> > rb-site can write to, so that we can be more intelligent about
>> upgrades.
>> > If you come up with a good way to do it, let me know :)
>> >
>>
>>
>> Has Review Board formally and without question dropped Windows support?
>> If so, it becomes reasonably easy to hardcode a requirement on a file
>> such as /etc/ReviewBoard/sites which could be as simple as
>> one-path-per-line, and then patch rb-site to amend it when doing an
>> install and to iterate through it when calling 'rb-site upgrade' with no
>> arguments.
>>
>> Then all I would have to do in the Fedora packages is call 'rb-site
>> upgrade' in the %post section on upgrades.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a comment from BitNami. Even if Windows is not supported it would
>> be great you don't have any path hardcoded. Currently we allow to have
>> different installations in the systems in different installation paths,
>> installing as root as an not root user. Of course this is also possible
>> without using the BitNami installers. Having that hardcoded will affect
>> this flexibility. If those are necessary I would suggest to have default
>> values..but not hardcoded and not customizables values.
>>
>
> Yeah, the same thought occurred to me a few minutes ago. I may just try
> to make it a variable in settings.py or something, defaulting to
> /etc/ReviewBoard, unless Christian or David has a better idea.
>

Ok, I have a first pass at implementing this, by adding a new option to
rb-site (--sitelist) which will default to /etc/ReviewBoard/sites

I've modified the upgrade routine so that it can be called as 'rb-site
upgrade' with no site listed, at which point it will iterate through the
sites listed in /etc/ReviewBoard/sites and upgrade them all.

I'm sending these as attached git-format-patch patches because the
reviews.reviewboard.org website appears to be broken at the moment.

[Christian Hammond]

On Jun 4, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher <ste...@gallagherhome.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sending these as attached git-format-patch patches because the
> reviews.reviewboard.org website appears to be broken at the moment.
>

Hmm, broken in what way? I'm not seeing anything unusual.

--
Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 06/04/2013 03:37 PM, Christian Hammond wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher <ste...@gallagherhome.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sending these as attached git-format-patch patches because the
>> reviews.reviewboard.org website appears to be broken at the moment.
>>
>
> Hmm, broken in what way? I'm not seeing anything unusual.
>

I can't edit any of the fields at all from the web interface. There are
no buttons beside any of them. Perhaps a permission problem for non-admins?

[David Trowbridge]

Are you logged in?

-David

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard-d...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 06/04/2013 03:42 PM, David Trowbridge wrote:
> Are you logged in?
>

Yes I am. Oddly enough, it's working now. I'm not sure if someone
changed something or my browser was malfunctioning.

Review at http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/4204/

[Steven MacLeod]

There is a bug right now preventing editing and publishing on the view diff page. Just make sure you're on the reviews page and it should work

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 06/04/2013 03:48 PM, Steven MacLeod wrote:
> There is a bug right now preventing editing and publishing on the view
> diff page. Just make sure you're on the reviews page and it should work
>

Ahh, that explains it. That's exactly where I was. (And when I went
back, I was on the reviews page). Thanks!

[Christian Hammond]

This will be fixed in the next deploy. Tonight maybe. We're rewriting alllll the JavaScript.

Christian

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 06/04/2013 03:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Ok, I have a first pass at implementing this, by adding a new option to
> rb-site (--sitelist) which will default to /etc/ReviewBoard/sites
>
> I've modified the upgrade routine so that it can be called as 'rb-site
> upgrade' with no site listed, at which point it will iterate through the
> sites listed in /etc/ReviewBoard/sites and upgrade them all.
>

I've updated the review at http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/4204/ with
some minor fixes to the formatting as detected by ReviewBot. I'd like to
get some feedback on the approach, though. (I've also attached the two
git-formatted patches to this email for easy applying).