Thomas Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker schrieb:
[...] >> Hmm, you're right, and still, one of its children, >> d9df3690ffc222d7f6b1a65c34bfdfdcd6ad6735, is in nvm... > > And its entirely my fault! Now how can we back this out? We can't, I think. A more interesting question is how it might be made possible to back out such a change. In particular, suppose there's just one revision, or one fork: how could we indicate that that fork is a dead end (and so it shouldn't interfere with propagate, participate in merge, etc.)? In this case the revision's now an ancestor of all the heads, so we're stuck with it. I guess once branch-renaming becomes possible, one could contemplate putting all the acceptable revisions into a new branch, then renaming so that the change of branch would be less annoying? > If we disapprove this revision, can the branch be merged into nvm > later on? I think the files that were added in that revision (some test files?) would then be permanently dead, so no. [...] _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
