On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 09:32:20 +0200, Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote: > On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 15:31 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote: > > Matthieu Moy wrote: > > > > >Ulf Ochsenfahrt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > [ ... snip ... ] > > > > > My guess is that he branched from a remote repository, and "baz commit" > > is trying to generate the complete ancestry for the branch. That > > requires connecting to the old archive. > > That is a bad idea. The ancestry (according to CONTINUATION) is: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/cqs--mainline--0.1--patch-6 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/cqs--ulfjack--0.1--version-0 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/cqs--mainline--0.2--version-0 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/cqs--mainline--0.2 > > That old archive may not even exist anymore. (I'm actually wondering > that it is still registered.) What's worse is that it first commited the > patch to the archive, then went to look for the archive and DID NOT mark > the tree has having the patch. > > I had to Ctrl-C it because I didn't have network at that time and when I > tried to continue with tla, tla told me that the tree was not > up-to-date. So i tla updated it and - guess what - I got a conflict.
Yes, I had similar problem when I had misconfigured signing. It commited
the patch, but failed while marking the tree (because it checked the
signature it just made and failed since I gave it the wrong key id).
The solution here is to sync-tree. Since the changes actually are there,
status shold say it's unchanged after that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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/
