Boost logo

Boost :

From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-11 14:23:09

James Sharpe wrote:
> 2008/5/6 Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>:
>> Having an svnmerge command like in this case
>> <> spew commentary
>> all over existing trac items like this one
>> <>, just seems like a
>> really bad thing.

Agreed. I didn't know that was happening.

>> Is this yet another reason not to use svnmerge? Or is it operator
>> (not to pick on Eric) error that can be averted in the future? Or
>> could it be the trac comment plugin causing this, and svnmerge is
>> blameless?

Recommended usage of is to commit the merged changes using
`svn commit -F svnmerge-commit-message.txt`, where
svnmerge-commit-message.txt is a text file containing all the commit
messages for the merged changes. The file is generated by
For now, I can simply commit merged changes using `-m "blah"` instead to
avoid the trac spew.

> I'd say that its the trac plugin. Its picking up the fact that the
> bugs were closed on the branch and when it sees the comment again
> then it tries to close the bug again. Could the trac plugin be
> modified to ignore comments when the string 'svnmerge' is in the log
> message?

If the trac plugin didn't try to close bugs that were already closed, I
think the problem would go away, right?

> Interesting it didn't spam
> so trac may be
> doing something more complex..
> Of course this can be worked around by users if it becomes a problem
> by removing the bug numbers from the log messages, although I'd
> admit its not a convenient fix and one that'd be easy to forget given
> the workflow for

Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at