Hello,
i am trying to post a review with RBTools 0.5.2 and it insists on finding a
file which is not in the repo anymore. The problem is that i think that the
file nonexistence is correct, so the question is why rbt post is trying to
find it.
I have removed a certain 3rd party library from a
Daniel,
I'd suggest making a quick clone of the reviewboard repository, making your
change, and then posting your diff against the reviewboard repository by
either creating a diff manually (git diff --full-index) or using rbt post.
-David
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Daniel Kan
On 2013-10-18 01:45, Kim Gräsman wrote:
I might try to come up with a patch, but I haven't really thought
about user experience. A new button seems a little brutal.
If you've thought about this before, have you come up with any ideas
for how this might be controlled?
What about a 'trivial
Sounds cool!
Would you expect the revised extension framework to be backwards compatible
with 1.7 extensions ?
thanks
Mark
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:19:56 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Woehlke
mwoehlk...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Extensions written for 1.7.x are compatible. The changes in 2.0 will just
make a lot of things (like shipping javascript/css as part of your
extension) a lot easier and adds new hooks and capabilities.
-David
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:56 PM, markdbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds cool!
Would
On 2013-10-17 16:19, Christian Hammond wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Wait... what happened to 1.8? :-)
1.8 is becoming 2.0.
Here's a brief summary of what's changed since 1.7:
[...]
Thanks. Sounds very cool and exciting!
* Given the rewrite, we have
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Matthew Woehlke
mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2013-10-17 16:19, Christian Hammond wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Wait... what happened to 1.8? :-)
1.8 is becoming 2.0.
Here's a brief summary of what's changed since
On 2013-10-18 17:19, Christian Hammond wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Is there is a 'sandbox' server running the bleeding edge anywhere? I
suppose I could always roll my own, but it would be cool if there was a
convenient way for curious folks to play around
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Matthew Woehlke
mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2013-10-18 17:19, Christian Hammond wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Is there is a 'sandbox' server running the bleeding edge anywhere? I
suppose I could always roll my own,
On 2013-10-18 17:37, Christian Hammond wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 2013-10-18 17:19, Christian Hammond wrote:
Yep. demo.reviewboard.org and reviews.reviewboard.org are running this
(though a week out of date I think).
Hmm, both of those 403 for me...?
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium
New issue 3117 by dharris...@gmail.com: Confirmation button on
CloseDiscarded
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3117
*** For customer support, please post to reviewbo...@googlegroups.com
*** If you have a
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 3118 by markdbe...@gmail.com: admin user can't view Review
Requests associated with non-public repositories
http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3118
*** READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!
***
*** You must complete
12 matches
Mail list logo
