Sorry about that, I did review the commit message and made changes to the llm output (which is why there are 2 versions of the message in the log). I edited/reviewed the message in my IDE then copied it incorrectly into the SVN commit window. I've amended the log message.
On 2026/07/04 11:17:20 Branko Čibej wrote: > On 4. 7. 2026 12:59, Evgeny Kotkov via dev wrote: > > Jordan Peck<[email protected]> writes: > > > >> Read 1 file > >> > >> ● Update(subversion\libsvn_repos\fs-wrap.c) > >> Added 1 line, removed 1 line > >> svn_repos_t *repos, > >> svn_revnum_t rev, > >> _t *pool) > >> { > >> apr_array_header_t *revprops; > >> > >> ● Update(subversion\libsvn_repos\fs-wrap.c) > >> Added 1 line, removed 1 line > > … > >> Fix 5c — state commit_callback nullability on editor6 directly > >> (replacing the stale pre-1.6 parenthetical): > >> > >> ● Update(subversion\include\svn_repos.h) > >> Added 1 line, removed 2 lines > > … > >> You've hit your session limit · resets 9:50pm (Europe/London) > >> /upgrade or /usage-credits to finish what you’re working on. > >> > >> ✻ Baked for 5m 21s > >> > >> ❯ Can you put together a brief commit message for this change > >> > >> Here's a commit message in the Apache Subversion log-message convention > >> (summary paragraph plus per-file annotations), ready for svn commit -F: > > Looks like the commit message accidentally picked up part of your Claude > > session, not just the generated message itself. > > > I'm going to be less diplomatic. We know how LLMs are prone to > "hallucination". And yet you didn't bother to review the commit message > it prepared for you. How do we know that the code wasn't generated with > a similar attention to detail? > > This is open source. You're never in too much of a hurry to get things > committed. We prefer ... or rather, I prefer quality over quantity. > Please do better next time. > > -- Brane >
