Mercurial wipes repository history!?

[Jon Ribbens]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:08:50AM -0500, Mark A. Flacy wrote:
>    On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:54 +0100, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>  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.

Can you think of a use case that illustrates why anyone would ever
want to roll back a "clone" - why it would ever *not* be the wrong
thing to do?