RE: Addition of SES local printer functions.

["Vincent Belaïche" <vincent.b.1@hotmail.fr>]

Shouldn't that be in that order:

bzr merge -r 115841..115840
bzr ci -m "Reverted revision 115841."

bzr merge -r 115838..115837
bzr ci -m "Reverted revision 115838."


i.e revert first 115841 and second 115838 ?

   Vincent.

> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 12:34:24 +0200
> From: eliz@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Addition of SES local printer functions.
> To: vincent.b.1@hotmail.fr
> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> > From: Vincent Belaïche <vincent.b.1@hotmail.fr>
> > CC: emacs-devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> > Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:40:35 +0100
> >
> > I did bzr merge -r 115841..115824 .
>
> I said to use "-r N..N-1", so you should have done this instead:
>
> bzr merge -r 115841..115840 .
>
> > So there seemed to be far more files implied than the 4 which I have modified. For that reason I did not do the commit. Should I ?
>
> No, of course not. Instead, revert to the previous state:
>
> bzr revert
>
> then invoke the correct merge command as shown above.
>
> > Maybe the reason is that I did two commits in a row to apply the change.
>
> Then revert them one by one. Like this:
>
> bzr merge -r 115838..115837
> bzr ci -m "Reverted revision 115838."
> bzr merge -r 115841..115840
> bzr ci -m "Reverted revision 115841."
>
>