djblets 0.5.8/9 and ReviewBoard 1.0.5.1

I'm planning to update djblets in Fedora, but I'm curious about the changelog. It says that it breaks backwards-compatibility with the web API, because of the assumption of HTTP code 200 for all messages with a payload. Did ReviewBoard 1.0.5.1 make this assumption? In other words, do I need to wait

Re: djblets 0.5.8/9 and ReviewBoard 1.0.5.1

Hi Stephen, Clients make the assumption, and Review Board 1.0.5.1 and lower will have this problem with Djblets 0.5.8+. However, Review Board 1.0.6 works around this and maintains proper backwards-compatibility. I'll soon (this week) be putting out a new release of both in order to further improv

Re: Windows Installation -- getting close

Hi Mike, The reviewboard.fcgi script is a Python shell script. It was written with the assumption of being executed like other *nix shell scripts, where the first line indicates which interpreter will run the file. On Windows, this isn't usually the case unless you're running in cygwin or somethin

Re: Install Windows x64 -- don't even try

Thanks Mike. That's a good thing to note. Would you mind filing a bug against our docs for tracking purposes? A lot of our dependencies are far harder to install on Windows than Linux, and sadly there's little we can do about this. We generally encourage people to use a VM with Ubuntu for a Review

Re: Install Windows x64 -- don't even try

Done: http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/list?thanks=1601&ts=1270521941 On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Christian Hammond wrote: > Thanks Mike. That's a good thing to note. Would you mind filing a bug > again

Re: Slow diffs (many min)

Hi Aaron, Comments inline. On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote: > Wow, thanks for all the detail! I'll definitely give this a shot on Monday! > Some inline comments: > > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Christian Hammond wrote: > >> >> The possible bottlenecks I can think of

Re: Customize ReviewBoard instance

Hi, We have a few things planned and in development for the level of customization you guys want. 1) We have some things that will be in the 1.6 release (it's actually written today, just isn't scheduled for 1.5) for WebHooks, which allow for calling external scripts (technically, doing an HTTP P

Re: Customize ReviewBoard instance

Thank You very much for answer :) To the POST hooks :) or URL hooks. IMHO there are many ways to pass arguments to hook like this. I think this will be good to have something like "method" argument in hook calling which could be similar to jquery.ajax argument. Which means when we call hook we cou

Re: Customize ReviewBoard instance

The beauty of Git is that you don't have to only base your changes on one branch. You can easily merge from multiple branches into your branch. What I'd recommend is to have a branch, for example "vendor", which is what your internal builds will be from. Then, each feature would go its own featur