RhodeCode - issues: Issueshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/https://issues.rhodecode.com/favicon.ico?16960560042023-12-07T08:07:42ZRhodeCode - issues
Redmine RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5712 (New): add framework to set some UI settings via .ini file for easie...https://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/57122023-12-07T08:07:42ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>Currently there's a distinction on what can be controlled via .ini file vs DB.</p>
<p>some of the options seems to not make sense to be controlled via UI (like svn proxy)</p>
<p>Add a framework so you cna still controll this via .ini, but it will save the value in DB and in case this is defined in .,ini file make it read-only on UI.</p>
<p>e.g if svn.proxy is set in ini, push this value into the DB, and make it read-only in DB.</p>
<p>Tis would greatly simplify deployments on k8s or other docker stacks</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5705 (New): 5.X - activate update task automatically over rcstackhttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/57052023-11-13T08:06:05ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>Because rcstack has enabled scheduler by default, we should activate the periodic update check</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5697 (New): Improve CI & CD integrationshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/56972023-10-17T16:31:20ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.comRhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5695 (New): Artifacts - Making artifacts a prime functionalityhttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/56952023-10-17T16:28:43ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.comRhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5694 (New): GIT LFS 2.0https://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/56942023-10-17T16:27:54ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.comRhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5404 (New): Add an option to detach review rules when deleting an userhttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/54042017-11-22T11:23:48ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>In cases there are 100s, and user should be removed we need an explicit option to detach an user from review rules.</p>
<ul>
<li>check what happens then to the old review get changed</li>
<li><p>big fat warning about how it can change old ?</p></li>
<li><p>maybe a replace with X user ?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>again reconsider what this means and if we really should have it !</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5400 (New): User group - subgroup supporthttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/54002017-11-06T22:00:25ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.comRhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5270 (New): Comments updateshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/52702017-04-05T12:39:52ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>Think about emails sent out on on comments:</p>
<ul>
<li>maybe they shouldn’t be inside both </li>
<li>add more context (TODO resolution)</li>
<li>Maybe thread that would allow reading those ?</li>
</ul>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5200 (New): investigate search improvementshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/52002017-02-08T00:59:38ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>Search in changelog, proper repo filter, re-check syntax.</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #4312 (New): Storage location changeshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/43122016-11-28T02:16:25ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>Allow custom location per-repository to help fragmentise the source code storage</p>
<ul>
<li>Who will be allowed to change these settings.</li>
<li>What use cases would that support</li>
</ul>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #4290 (New): Allow to transplant the review status to merged commitshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/42902016-10-21T15:00:18ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>In case of pull request merge we currently only leave statuses/comments inside the source repo. For tracability reasons it would be really usefull to push the review statuses back into the origin. At first we should simply support case that only the matched hashes gets transfered the review markers.</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #4246 (New): [ce, ee, vcs, git] add tests for annotated git tagshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/42462016-09-27T15:46:51ZDaniel Ddaniel@rhodecode.com
<p>Need to add a test that makes sure annotated git tags are correctly dereferenced / peeled to the actual commit they point to.</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #4120 (New): [ce] replace get_repo_nodes apihttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/41202016-07-24T20:55:21ZDaniel Ddaniel@rhodecode.com
<p>The current get_repo_nodes api loads the entire repo in one go, for a large repo (gbs) this will result in an output at least the size of the repo, which can cause memory issues, currently issue #4114 adds a max_file_bytes to work around this issue for the full text search indexer but a more long term solution is required:</p>
<p>Splitting get_repo_nodes into 2 actions, one to get the nodes, another to get node data should solve this, also since getting node content one by one would be slow it would be a good idea to allow batch node retrieval.</p>
<p>The methods required would go along the lines of:</p>
<pre><code>get_repo_nodes(repo_name, version, node_paths)
=>[
{'path': '/README', 'size': 434},
{'path': '.gitconfig', 'size': 53},
{'path': '/some/file', 'size': 5223},
{'path': '/another/file', 'size': 6433}
]
get_node_content('somerepo', 'tip', ['/README', '/some/file']) => contents of those 2 files only
</code></pre> RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #4045 (New): File permissionshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/40452016-06-27T11:56:42ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>WIP desc, file permissions</p>
<ul>
<li>pattern based</li>
<li>write restriction only</li>
<li>allow/deny semanticks (aka firewall rules pattern)</li>
</ul>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #2844 (New): Update Bcrypt to a maintained versionhttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/28442015-10-27T12:12:46ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>We use py-bcrypt-0.4 which is unmaintained.</p>
<p>We should switch to <a href="https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bcrypt/3.1.1" class="external">https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bcrypt/3.1.1</a> which should be fully compatible.</p>