Small bug in trac e-mail report

[Florent Hivert]

Hi there,

There is a small bug in trac's automatic report by e-mails. On
sage-combi...@googlegroups.com
we just receive the following e-mail from trac (see [1] below)

> #8500: Add the set of TransitiveGroups
> -----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
> [...]
> -----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
> Changes (by newvalueoldvalue):
>
> * status: needs_review => needs_work
> * author: => Nicolas Borie
> [...]

The author should be nthiery and not newvalueoldvalue. You can find other
instance of this bug in eg. in [2],[3]. Is it known ? Should it be reported
somewhere ? Should I open a ticket about it ? Any idea where it is coming
from ? Is is sufficiently harmless so that it should be ignored ?

Florent, asking a lot ;-)

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-commits/msg/fab9d1a41858937d
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-commits/browse_thread/thread/fb3855fe987c1a1f
[3] http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-commits/msg/b2f1ec556aabd425

[Craig Citro]

> The author should be nthiery and not newvalueoldvalue. You can find other
> instance of this bug in eg. in [2],[3]. Is it known ? Should it be reported
> somewhere ? Should I open a ticket about it ? Any idea where it is coming
> from ? Is is sufficiently harmless so that it should be ignored ?
>

FWIW, I've seen this and complained in my head about it probably a
million times. I keep putting it off until I have time to sit down and
figure out whether it's us or trac itself, so I haven't done anything
about it -- but yes, it's known, yes, it's annoying, and yes, it
should be fixed. Maybe open a trac ticket saying someone should
determine the cause (us or trac) and fix it/file a more precise bug
report. Okay, I guess I'm not *quite* that lazy:

http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8526

-cc

[Florent Hivert]

Hi Craig,

> > The author should be nthiery and not newvalueoldvalue. You can find other
> > instance of this bug in eg. in [2],[3]. Is it known ? Should it be reported
> > somewhere ? Should I open a ticket about it ? Any idea where it is coming
> > from ? Is is sufficiently harmless so that it should be ignored ?
> >
>
> FWIW, I've seen this and complained in my head about it probably a
> million times. I keep putting it off until I have time to sit down and
> figure out whether it's us or trac itself, so I haven't done anything
> about it -- but yes, it's known, yes, it's annoying, and yes, it
> should be fixed.

Wow ! Asking google about "newvalueoldvalue" I only found 10 answers. So I
assumed it was new and only for our trac.

> Maybe open a trac ticket saying someone should determine the cause (us or
> trac) and fix it/file a more precise bug report. Okay,

So my first assumption is wrong but maybe my second is true...

> I guess I'm not *quite* that lazy:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8526

Thanks for doing it for me ;-)

Florent