We should at the same 2.4.x state as before the release try now, I think the script(s) can be restarted with the correct tag/version (2.4.38! ;) ) as if it were the first time.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:05 PM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > An aside r.e. subversion; > > Just please don't do what gstein has warned us against. I've performed > the ill-advised jump-over abandoned work in the past; > svn rm ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk > svn cp ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk@123456 ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk > attempting to drop activity between 123457 and present. Greg advised > us this turns out to do some ugly rebasing leaving a very ugly mess of > records in the underlying database. Anyone from subversion team could > give a better explanation why this is badness. This might look like > a reversion, but don't do this. > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:00 PM Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> It's subversion, not git - we can always revert ;p > >
