On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 23:13 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I did > > > > baz register-archive http://bazaar.canonical.com/archives/[EMAIL > > PROTECTED] > > baz get [EMAIL PROTECTED]/bazaar--pristine-version--1.4--patch-2 > > > > but I am not sure how to built from your tree, so I did > > > > baz get http://bazaar.canonical.com/archives/[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]/dists--bazaar--1.4 bazaar > > > > and replaced bazaar/src/baz by your tree and built by > > Alternatively, you could have used "baz replay" to cherrypick the > patch from me (In Xtla: C-u M-x baz-missing RET RET > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/bazaar--pristine-version--1.4 RET, mark > with 'm' and replay with 'r'), or "baz switch" (M-x baz-switch RET) as > an improved shortcut for "rm + baz get". > > I've continued the idea behind my patch (preset version and revision > fields for project tree objects representing pristine). > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/bazaar--pristine-version-submit--1.4--patch-2 > > That I've submitted to the pqm, so it should appear soon in the > official archive.
I'm afraid I've raced with you on this one - I spent the weekend largely offline destressing and doing preparatory work for the win32 revlib formats. Anyway, I've added a check to arch_find_local_tree_copy (which all reference tree lookups go though) to validate the tree metadata. If the tree does not match what we expected (both revision and default-version) then its removed and a new one created. I considered just setting it in memory, or just overriding it, but we really can't guess why it will be wrong - there are known causes, but it could be something more serious - so this is the safest route. Cheers, Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
