On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:41:45PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 at 12:11 -0500:
> > On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:17:58 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > >> Author: jrvernooij
> > >> Date: Sat Mar 14 08:17:58 2009
> > >> New Revision: 36553
> > >> Log:
> > >> Add tag 0.33.1
> > > I'm sorry about this spur of tag updates. For some reason bzr-svn
> > > thought
> > > I had these tags changed locally. I'll refrain from using it until I'm
> > > sure it won't do things like this again.
> > Out of curiosity, have you verified that there weren't any changes
> > between the replaced tag and the new one?
> FWIW, the only changes I found were in the copyfrom-revisions:
> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1_at_r36552
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r7796 | josander | 2003-11-18 20:15:18 +0200 (Tue, 18 Nov 2003)
> Changed paths:
> D /branches/release-0.33.1
> A /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7795)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1_at_r36553
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r36553 | jrvernooij | 2009-03-14 17:17:58 +0200 (Sat, 14 Mar 2009)
> Changed paths:
> R /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7789)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 7795 != 7789.
Since there aren't any changes on /branches/release-0.33.1 between r7789 and
r7795, this is effectively the same tag. My apologies again for
accidently readding these tags, it won't happen again.
Cheers,
Jelmer
Received on 2009-03-14 19:59:27 CET