[Monotone-devel] Re: Merging an ancestor with one of its grandchildren

[Tom Koelman]

Bruce Stephens <address@hidden> writes:

> Tom Koelman <address@hidden> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> So I ended up committing a trivial change to B, creating B3 and then
>> merged Z to B3. This felt really hacky and I don't like this
>> solution. Was there a better one?
>
> Isn't this exactly suitable for propagate?

Thanks!

You're right. I just tested whether propagate would have worked and it
did. I am still a bit surprised that explicit_merge has troubles with
this, I always assumed that progagate and merge were implemented using
explicit_merge, but apparantly not.

I feel propagate's behaviour on this is a bit hacky, though. There is
now a hole in the history of the main branch, by which I mean a lot of
revisions that aren't tagged 'main'. I can't think of anything that
would go wrong with this, but it doesn't feel right.

On why I _didn't_ try to use propagate: my main branch is in an
unmergable state, probably due to a monotone bug. I just reproduced
monotone's behaviour and post about this separately.

Regards,
Tom Koelman