Thank you, folks. I apologize again for the embarrassing mistake.
Will be sending along the updated vote email in a few seconds.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 2019-01-17 12:30, Yann Ylavic wrote:
We should at the same 2.4.x state as before the release try now, I
think the script(s) can be restarted with the correct tag/version
(2.4.38! ;) ) as if it were the first time.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:05 PM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
An aside r.e. subversion;
Just please don't do what gstein has warned us against. I've performed
the ill-advised jump-over abandoned work in the past;
svn rm ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
svn cp ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk@123456 ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
attempting to drop activity between 123457 and present. Greg advised
us this turns out to do some ugly rebasing leaving a very ugly mess of
records in the underlying database. Anyone from subversion team could
give a better explanation why this is badness. This might look like
a reversion, but don't do this.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:00 PM Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org>
wrote:
It's subversion, not git - we can always revert ;p
