Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> skribis: > Am Sonntag, 27. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: >> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: >> > Having agreed on linear history, it seems that (a) the current >> > behavior is broken because roll-backs don’t actually follow the >> > history, as illustrated previously, and (b) the generation from which >> > we are rolling back must be deleted. > > It seems to work: I rolled back from 21 to 20, 19, 18, 17; then removed a > package and am at 18 now. Then removed another package and arrived at 19, > where the previous 18 and 19 were overwritten.
Good. > Personally, I would have deleted all (consecutive) generations starting > with 19 after the first roll-back and additional package removal; now we > still have pieces of old history lying around, the (old and) current 20 is > not a successor of the current 19 any more. Yeah, I wondered about that and ended up with the approach that’s the easiest in terms of implementation. Thanks for testing! Ludo’.
