Mercurial wipes repository history!?

Mark A. Flacy mflacy at
Thu Apr 8 10:08:50 CDT 2010

On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:54 +0100, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:45:39PM +0200, Benoit Boissinot wrote:
> > A transaction is an operation modifying the history. As far as I can
> > tell from your command log, the last transaction *is* the clone
> > operation.
> It is in that log, yes. It was not in the scenario we were trying to
> replicate. It is also not at all clear to me that "clone" should be
> a roll-backable operation (it is evidently not clear to the hg authors
> either, since a local clone is not roll-backable and a remote clone
> is.)

"clone" is a transaction.  The fact that a local clone cannot be rolled
back is an error.

> > > Surely it would be much better to make the remote behaviour fail too?
> > > Suddenly vaporising the entire repository without warning is hardly
> > > good behaviour to be more widely introduced!

No, it would be better to make the local clone behave correctly on
rollback.   That way the rollback command behavior is consistent and
users have the chance to create a proper mental model of the rollback

Mark A. Flacy <mflacy at>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Mercurial mailing list