RBTools 0.3 released
Christian Hammond
RBTools 0.3 has been released. There's a list of what's changed, and some important notes for people with mod_wsgi configurations, on the news page below.
http://www.reviewboard.org/news/2011/01/30/rbtools-0-3-released/
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
Julian Mehnle
> RBTools 0.3 has been released. There's a list of what's changed, and
> some important notes for people with mod_wsgi configurations, on the
> news page below.
>
> http://www.reviewboard.org/news/2011/01/30/rbtools-0-3-released/
Great work!
However, I'm wondering about Bazaar (bzr) support. I managed to generally
get it working by applying the patch posted in
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=773 AKA
http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1739/
to RBTools 0.2 with some manual fiddling and using the regexp adjustment
described in review #1739.
Whom can I work with to get this into RBTools proper?
-Julian
Christian Hammond
There are patches for Bazaar and Darcs that need to go in. We'll still
get them in, but due to the removal of the old API in 1.6, we had to
cut a release now. We'll go through and do another round of reviews
and start getting ready to cut a release once those are in.
Christian
--
Stephen Gallagher
> Hi everyone,
>
> RBTools 0.3 has been released. There's a list of what's changed, and
> some important notes for people with mod_wsgi configurations, on the
> news page below.
>
> http://www.reviewboard.org/news/2011/01/30/rbtools-0-3-released/
Thanks Christian!
I've built Fedora and EPEL packages for RBTools 0.3:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RBTools-0.3-1.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RBTools-0.3-1.el5
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RBTools-0.3-1.el6
Chris Clark
> RBTools 0.3 has been released. There's a list of what's changed, and
> some important notes for people with mod_wsgi configurations, on the
> news page below.
>
> http://www.reviewboard.org/news/2011/01/30/rbtools-0-3-released/
Cool! Thanks to everyone who worked on the new release.
Can you clarify the pre 1.5 support for RBTools 0.3? The release notes
imply 1.5.2 is needed, possibly for new features. I tried the new
postreview against 1.0.5.x and a basic diff post seems to work.
Thanks!
Chris
Christian Hammond
Hi Chris,
Pre-1.5 should still work fine. We still have the code paths for supporting the old APIs. If something does regress, though, let me know.
It's possible that by 1.0, we won't support the old APIs anymore, but that's still a bit off. Of course, by that point, I plan to replace post-review with some more fine-grained, useful tools.
Christian
Daniel Benamy
Any idea when this will be released or even just committed? I'd try
out unreleased code to use it.
Thanks so much for your awesome work. Reviewboard is great!
Dan
> Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org
> VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
Christian Hammond
We can probably get that into an upcoming release. Right now things are stalled a bit in RBTools as we try to focus on the 1.6 release, a Python API for accessing Review Board, and some other work.
There's a patch at http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1739/ that you can try. It still needs some work before it can go in (as you can see from the comments).
Not being a Bazaar expert, I'm relying on others to help review and test this change, and possibly getting it into shape.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
--
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
John Yates
> There's a patch at http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1739/ that you can try.
> It still needs some work before it can go in (as you can see from the
> comments).
Chris,
I took a look at the review comments. All seem to involve
insufficiently general regular expressions for matching information
reported back from bzr. This is not surprising. Bzr is the "Swiss
Army Knife" of dvc. It presents the user with a dizzying number of
ways to combine its components.
The good news is that the bzr development team is very helpful and
very responsive. I suspect that a request for help on their mailing
list (nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general
or https://lists.canonical.com/mailman/listinfo/bazaar) would provide
improved regular expressions in short order.
/john