Ok, my solution was actually not so correct. If Simon would push his amended patch, this would have led to a conflict in darcs. I now unpulled both the manual UNDO patch and the original patch.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Thomas Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, naturally, unpulling from darcs doesn't unpull from the git repo > and the darcs repo it is based on. > In case we ever have to do this again (hopefully not), here's what i did: > > $ git log # to find out the commit id > $ git revert <commit-id> # create an invert commit > $ git status # should report no changes > # now git has changed the working directory, so darcs will think > there are new changes > # this we have to create a manual revert on the darcs side. > $ darcs record -a > $ darcs whatsnew > No changes. > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Thomas Schilling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I wonder if that broke the Git mirror... >> >> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Malcolm Wallace >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Bother! I did not mean to push the patch below. >>>> Can someone who knows what they are doing expunge it from the HEAD >>>> repo and tell me what actions I need to take at this end? >>> >>> Although the usual policy is not to permit "unpull"s on the main repo, I >>> have unpulled this patch anyway. If anyone (or any buildbot) has pulled >>> this patch in the meantime, they should unpull it manually from their >>> own repo. I hope this does not inconvenience anyone too much. >>> >>> Simon: you only need to amend-record your patch and push it again when >>> it is correct. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Malcolm >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cvs-ghc mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
