Re: HEADS-UP: git repo issues

Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Andreas, > > * Andreas Schwab wrote on Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:50:58AM CEST: >> >> AFAICS the history in the git repository correctly matches the CVS tree, >> only the tags are pointing to the wrong commits. > > Did you check whether the correct co

Re: HEADS-UP: git repo issues

Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Andreas, > > * Andreas Schwab wrote on Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:50:58AM CEST: >> >> AFAICS the history in the git repository correctly matches the CVS tree, >> only the tags are pointing to the wrong commits. > > Did you check whether the correct co

Re: HEADS-UP: git repo issues

Hi Andreas, * Andreas Schwab wrote on Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:50:58AM CEST: > > AFAICS the history in the git repository correctly matches the CVS tree, > only the tags are pointing to the wrong commits. Did you check whether the correct commits are even present in the tree? If so, then I suppos

Re: HEADS-UP: git repo issues

Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > we messed up with your conversion from CVS to git. More precisely, > when we announced that git would be the primary repo, it had > - all tags pointing to wrong trees, > - no signed tags, > - a seemingly bogus history for the tree before version 1.2c.

HEADS-UP: git repo issues

Hello libtool list readers, we messed up with your conversion from CVS to git. More precisely, when we announced that git would be the primary repo, it had - all tags pointing to wrong trees, - no signed tags, - a seemingly bogus history for the tree before version 1.2c. We have fixed the first