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

Reply via email to