Okay. Well, it sounds like for whatever reason, the STDIN or STDOUT pipe to
patch is failing.
What would be interesting is to take the source and dest file and manually
run:
cat difffile | patch -o somenewfilename oldfile
There should be a /tmp/reviewboard.* directory containing a .diff file
Debian 5.0. /usr/bin/patch exists.
Mike
On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Christian Hammond wrote:
> Hmm, this is a new one. /usr/bin/patch exists, right?
>
> What distro is this?
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> VMware, In
Hmm, this is a new one. /usr/bin/patch exists, right?
What distro is this?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Mike Gunderloy wrote:
> Setting up a new Review Boa
Make sure you also use --full-index on git diff.
I've been really busy the last couple weeks. In and out of town, busy work
work, etc. I want that change in as much as anyone, just haven't been able
to give it the attention it needs. Soon :)
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
You need to either use post-review to generate the diff, or pass
--full-index to git diff. By default, git diff will generate short revision
SHA1s, whereas github requires long revision SHA1s.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware,
We're running 1.1alpha1.dev-r2026 and it's been great for the six
months or so we've been using it. As of yesterday, I consistently get
an error 207 (file not found) whenever I include a diff involving
existing files. New files are OK. Very odd since nothing's changed.
Repository URL is correct, e
There was a problem like this with git support a long time ago. Can
you add use the diff only option and make sure the diff it generates
looks somewhat reasonable?
Dan
On Oct 23, 11:22 am, James wrote:
> Per an earlier thread I'm trying to get Review Board working on a
> Windows machine
> with
Dan Savilonis wrote:
> Lobby for http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1144/ to get committed and
> you should be all set. :) For now, the only options are to use the web
> form or specify a revision range manually.
>
Consider this me +1 for this ;-)
> Can you explain more about the error with the
Lobby for http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1144/ to get committed and
you should be all set. :) For now, the only options are to use the web
form or specify a revision range manually.
Can you explain more about the error with the web form? You mentioned
git diff, and if you meant that literally,
I'm trying to get an installation running using sqlite and lighttpd
without being root (as a test before I bother my company's sys
admins). I have installed python2.6 into a local directory, and I
got rb-site actually running. However, when I try to start it up, it
says modules are missing. It
Thanks I got the changes made and recompiled the .egg. Got further
but ran into a different problem
for which I'll open a separate thread
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? L
Setting up a new Review Board install (1.0.5.1) to experiment with.
Install seems to have worked and I've set up a single git repo and
used post-review to toss a review request in. But on trying to view
the diff I get:
[Errno 32] Broken pipe
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/
Per an earlier thread I'm trying to get Review Board working on a
Windows machine
with ClearCase integration. I've gotten earlier road blocks and now
post-review runs
but it only gets so far and then the Apache server goes to 99% CPU
utilization and
post-review process hangs until I restart Apach
Whilst I use other distributed SCM's I've only just started with git (as
ReviewBoard uses it) and I think I'm having some trouble understanding
git (and reviewboard).
What I'd like to do is post for review changes/diffs against a branch
(not master/bleeding edge).
E.g.
git clone git://gi
I also went back to the LTS release. The only reason I was
considering 9.04 was because I had hoped not to have to build
PyLucene. FYI I believe 9.04 is the first release that a PyLucene
package has been offered.
On Oct 22, 12:46 pm, Chris Clark wrote:
> David,
>
> Which Ubuntu version did you
15 matches
Mail list logo