How is one copyfrom better than the other? Do we have a rationale for
why we would choose one over the other? And, therefore, why we should
change these tags again?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 17:19, Daniel Rall <dlr_at_finemaltcoding.com> wrote:
> I tend to think that all of these commits should be backed out to
> restore the original copyfrom info.
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer_at_samba.org> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1334140
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1334300
Received on 2009-03-16 17:54:07 CET