> Sorry for the hassle. No worries!
> Please test. It works. > P.S. > Git is cool. Yes! > I run "git revert" for the relevant revisions, then combined them and > committed to server. > Then I created a local branch and reverted again the earlier created > "revert-commit". > So I got my changes saved there, waiting until I have time to work on > them. Yeah, after working with distributed VCSes for a while, going back and trying to live with subversion seems almost impossible. I keep thinking, when I use subversion: why don't we just store batches of RCS commits on punch-cards and syndicate via UUCP? The end result would imo be O(1) of svn. Not that I fault anybody for using it -- I use it internally, in fact. But,... come now... one monolithic linear repository relying on a _convention_ of "branch" _directories_? Each repo hosted at a canonical url, which we need constant access to in order to get anything done? A self-described "better cvs"? It really is quite regressive. -gmt -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
