On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 12:32:48 +0100, David Allouche wrote: > On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 16:57 +0100, Matthieu MOY wrote: > > David Allouche said: > > > On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 13:56 -0800, Lyle Brulhart wrote: > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> It has worked perfectly! in my case: > > >> > > >> tla redo ,,undo-1 > > > > > > Just "tla redo" would have done it, by the way. > > > > > > Also, that's something that you should never have to do. > > > > > > Rationale: you should commit your changes before updating, > > > > Err, you just can't. If you need to "tla update", it means your tree is > > not up to date, and you're not allowed to commit. > > Arch encourrages decentralized revision control, in which "update" is > > replaced by other merge operators (star-merge, replay, apply-delta ...) > > so, your rationale should be > > "Rationale: you should not use update and commit your changes before > > merging" > > Right, but I wanted to stay simple. > > An alternative could be "you should undo, then update and commit, then > redo your local changes". Which would actually work in the centralised > case.
Taking into account, that update is a shortcut for undo + replay + redo,
...
(Note: no, it's not exactly replay. It's more of a star-merge with
itself, but anyway).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
