From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Rollback problems
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:44:43 +0100
Message-ID: <871ud5q65g.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <201301232148.46744.andreas@enge.fr> <87bocel2vo.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87libe4kvs.fsf@gnu.org> <201301282310.34473.andreas@enge.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45294)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1TzxRZ-0004UI-Bi
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:54 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1TzxRV-0002kx-FY
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:49 -0500
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:62610)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1TzxRV-0002kC-9O
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <201301282310.34473.andreas@enge.fr> (Andreas Enge's message of
	"Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:10:34 +0100")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> Am Sonntag, 27. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s:
>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) skribis:
>> > Having agreed on linear history, it seems that (a) the current
>> > behavior is broken because roll-backs don=E2=80=99t 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=
=20
> package and am at 18 now. Then removed another package and arrived at 19,=
=20
> where the previous 18 and 19 were overwritten.

Good.

> Personally, I would have deleted all (consecutive) generations starting=20
> with 19 after the first roll-back and additional package removal; now we=
=20
> still have pieces of old history lying around, the (old and) current 20 i=
s=20
> not a successor of the current 19 any more.

Yeah, I wondered about that and ended up with the approach that=E2=80=99s t=
he
easiest in terms of implementation.

Thanks for testing!

Ludo=E2=80=99.