Hi,
I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2.5.4 but 'rb-site
upgrade' fails...
# rb-site upgrade /var/www/my-site/
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.4', 'console_
ent/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:57 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2.
gt; --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:57 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> H
tory
>> you're in when running rb-site upgrade?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> Christian Hammond
>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>>
>> On Thu
installed? It looks like there's some weirdness
>>> going on with the module.
>>>
>>> Can you verify that there's no "reviewboard" directory in the directory
>>> you're in when running rb-site upgrade?
>>>
>>> Christian
>&g
;>> going on with the module.
>>>>
>>>> Can you verify that there's no "reviewboard" directory in the directory
>>>> you're in when running rb-site upgrade?
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>&g
n Friday, 13 May 2016 01:09:07 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> How was Review Board installed? It looks like there's some weirdness
>>>>> going on with the module.
>>>>>
the rb-site upgrade.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 13 May 2016 01:09:07 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>
>>>>
ian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for the slow reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was installed using easy_install, then the DB restored from our
>>>>>> live reviewboard server.
>>>>>> There is no reviewboard dir w
ore
I'm going to start this again...will let you know how it goes.
Thanks
Rob
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 16:06:04 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2.5.4 but 'rb-site
> upgrade' fails...
>
> # rb-site
module named scmtools.core
>
> I'm going to start this again...will let you know how it goes.
>
> Thanks
> Rob
>
> On Thursday, 12 May 2016 16:06:04 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2
We've been making regular backups of our RB 1.5.5 database, and I decided
it was time to verify that we can restore the DB to a new install in case
our server fails. The backups are made with mysqlhotcopy, so I understand
they can be restored by simply stopping the mysql service, copying the
b
I'm getting the exact same error. I'm trying to test an upgrade before
actually performing one on the live server and am getting the same Django
stack trace.
We are running RB 1.5.2 in production on Ubuntu 12.04. I've been using
easy_install to install ReviewBoard and made sure to force the Dja
That error has to do with having a mix of InnoDB and MyISAM tables. You
need to make sure all tables are the same format. If MySQL is creating new
tables with one, then you should convert the rest.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Bea
Thanks, that solved the issue. Looks like mysql 5.5 defaults to InnoDB but
our original tables were in the older format. I altered them to InnoDB and
everything works now. Thanks,
--Erik
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:26:12 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> That error has to do with having a m
I'm migrating a 1.6.16 RB site to a new server that's running RB 2.0.11. I
created a dump of the mysql database with --max_allowed_packet=512M to
minimize the chance of incomplete data. I modified the dump so that all
tables use InnoDB instead of MyISAM, and restored the reviewboard database
on
Hi.
After upgrading reviewboard 1.5 to 1.7, and tried to upgrade the sites i
got this error. And when you visit the sites it shows a directory listing.
Can anyone please help me ?
Rebuilding directory structure
Updating database. This may take a while.
Creating tables ...
There are unapplied
Hi Cory,
My apologies for the delay.
What likely happened is that you ended up with a mix of MyISAM and InnoDB
tables. The new MySQL server is likely defaulting to InnoDB, whereas your
dump is likely MyISAM. You'll need to fix up the dump to replace all MyISAM
instances with InnoDB.
You'd then n
Hi, upgrading 2.5.3 -> 2.5.4 on RHEL7 fails:
# rb-site upgrade /var/www/rb.site.internal
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 5, in
from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/distribute-0.6.19-py2.7.egg/pkg_resources.py",
Hi Vlad,
I can't speak for the RPMs, but Review Board itself requires Whoosh 2.6+.
There are bugs in prior versions that impact Review Board, so while you may
be able to change the dependencies, I can't guarantee it'll fully work as
expected.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond
President/CEO of Bean
Hi Christian,
Would this hack affect only Search (Indexed search) function of
ReviewBoard? Search is not configured by default, so this
is not a strict dependency as I understand. Am I correct?
I am not sure why RHEL7 has no whoosh update, so I did not install whoosh
with pip.
/v
On Sun, May 1,
Sorry Vlad, that's my fault. I didn't notice the upgraded requirement. I'm
going to try to get Whoosh updates in EPEL7 on Monday (once I talk to the
maintainer of that package to figure out if they held it to the older
version intentionally).
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 7:01 PM Vlad wrote:
> Hi Chris
Hi Stephen,
Thank you for the reply. Also there is another issue with
"mimeparse>=0.1.3" requirement. Somehow it works only once changed to
"python-mimeparse>=0.1.3". RHEL has proper 0.1.4 version though another
package name.
I tried to contact python-whoosh rpm maintainer and got email error:
I thought I had fixed the mime parse thing already. I'll correct that when
I fix up the whoosh thing tomorrow.
I'm a comaintainer of Whoosh on the other branches, so I can push the
updated version. I just wanted to check with the other maintainers in case
there was a compatibility break I need to
I've just submitted a corrected version of Review Board to the epel-testing
repository:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2bab5ad96d
Please test it and provide it with positive or negative feedback (karma).
That will get it into the stable release faster. (note: the reason
Thanx! I will be able to test and report on May 4.
/v
2 мая 2016 г. 16:34 пользователь "Stephen Gallagher" <
step...@gallagherhome.com> написал:
> I've just submitted a corrected version of Review Board to the
> epel-testing repository:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016
Sorry, haven't had chance to test it today. Hope to do it later this week.
вторник, 3 мая 2016 г., 1:47:25 UTC+3 пользователь Vlad S. написал:
>
> Thanx! I will be able to test and report on May 4.
>
> /v
>
>>
>>
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powe
Tested OK. Added +1 Karma. Thanx!
понедельник, 2 мая 2016 г., 16:34:38 UTC+3 пользователь Stephen Gallagher
написал:
>
> I've just submitted a corrected version of Review Board to the
> epel-testing repository:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2bab5ad96d
>
> Please te
Hi everyone,
I'm facing the following issue when trying to upgrade my reviewboard
installation.
Currently, the 3.0.24 container is running just fine.
After modifying podman's kube yaml file to use the 4.0.6-1 tag for the
reviewboard container I get the following output via "podman logs
reviewbo
29 matches
Mail list logo
