Hi, Paul LeoNerd Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At risk of setting a precedent here, I'd have to agree with Tom on this > one. Corrupted revlib entries SHOULD NOT happen in normal operation, and > just brushing it under the carpet like it didn't happen is highly > dangerous. I agree as well. The "sporadic unexpected backup/restore" configuration which Matthieu described is probably not a very common case. As such, it is not enough to motivate automatic deletion and recreation of revision libraries, IMO. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
