1. Benoît Allard
  2. mutable-history


mutable-history / docs / obs-concept.rst

Why Do We Need a New Concept

Current DVCS are great tools to forge a series of flawless changeset on your own. But they perform poorly when it comes to sharing some work in progress and collaborating on such work in progress.

When people forge a new version of a changeset they actually create a new changeset and get rid of the original changeset. Difficulties to collaborate mostly came from the way old content is removed from a repository.

Mercurial Approach: Strip

With the current version of mercurial, every changeset that exists in your repository is visible and meaningful. To delete old (rewritten) changesets, mercurial removes them from the repository storage with an operation called strip. After the stripping, the repository looks like if the changeset never existed.

This approach is simple and effective except for one big drawback: you can remove changesets from your repository only. If a stripped changeset exists in another repository it touches, it will show up again. This is because a shared changeset becomes part of a shared global history. Stripping a changeset from all repositories is at best impractical and in most case impossible!

As consequence, you can not rewrite something once you exchange it with others. The old version will still exist along side the new one [1].

Moreover stripping changesets creates backup bundles. This allows restoration of the deleted changesets, but the process is painful.

Finally, as the repository format is not optimized for deletion. stripping a changeset may be slow in some situations.

To sum up, the strip approach is very simple but does not handle interaction with the outer world, which is very unfortunate for a Distributed VCS.

[1]various work around exists but they require their own workflows which are distinct from the very elegant basic workflow of Mercurial.

Git Approach: Overwrite Reference

The Git approach to repository structure is a bit more complex: there can be any amount of unrelated changesets in a repository, and only changesets referenced by a git branch are visible and meaningful.


add a schema:

| B---<foo>

Only B and A are visible.

This simplifies the process of getting rid of old changesets. You can just leave them in place and move the reference on the new one. You can then propagate this change by moving the git-branch on remote host with the newer version of the marker overwriting the older one.

This approach goes a bit further but still has a major drawback:

Because you overwrite the git-branch, you have no conflict resolution. The last to act wins. This makes collaboration on multiple changesets difficult because you can't merge concurrent updates on a changeset.

Every overwrite is a forced operation where the operator says "Yes I want this to replace that. In highly distributed environments, a user may end up with conflicting references and no proper way to choose.

Because of this way to visualize a repository, git-branches are a core part of git, which makes the user interface more complicated and constrains moving through history.

Finally, even if all older changesets still exist in the repository, accesing them is still painful.

The Obsolete Marker Concept

As None of the concepts was powerful enough to fulfill the need of safely rewriting history, including easy sharing and collaborating on mutable history, we needed another one.

Basic concept

Every history rewriting operation stores the information that old rewritten changeset is replaced by newer version in a given set of changesets.

All basic history rewriting operation can create an appropriate obsolete marker.


Updating a changeset

Create one obsolete marker: ([A'] obsolete A)

Splitting a changeset in multiple one

Create one obsolete marker ([B1, B2] obsolete B)]

Merging multiple changeset in a single one

Create two obsolete markers ([C] obsolete A), ([C] obsolete B)

Moving changeset around

Reordering those two changesets need two obsolete markers: ([A'] obsolete A), ([B'] obsolete B)

Removing a changeset:

One obselete marker ([] obsolete B)

To conclude, a single obsolete marker express a relation from 0..n new changesets to 1 old changeset.

Basic Usage

Obsolete markers create a perpendicular history: a versioned changeset graph. This means that offers the same features we have for versioned files but applied to changeset:

First: we can display a coherent view of the history graph in which only a single version of your changesets is displayed by the UI.

Second, because obsolete changeset content is still available. You can you can

  • browse the content of your obsolete commits,
  • compare newer and older versions of a changeset,
  • restore content of previously obsolete changesets.

Finally, the obsolete marker can be exchanged between repositories. You are able to share the result on your history rewriting operations with other prople and collaborate on the mutable part of the history.

Conflicting history rewriting operation can be detected and resolved as easily as conflicting changes on a file.

Detecting and solving tricky situations

History rewriting can lead to complex situations. The obsolete marker introduces a simple representation for this complex reality. But people using complex workflows will one day or another have to face the intrinsic complexity of some real-world situation.

This section describes possible situations, defines precise sets of changesets involved in such situations and explains how the error cases can be resolved automatically using the available information.

Obsolete changesets

Old changesets left behind by obsolete operation are called obsolete.

With the current version of mercurial, this obsolete part is stripped from the repository before the end of every rewriting operation.


Rebasing B and C on A (as B', C')

This rebase operation added two obsolete markers from new changesets to old changesets. These two old changesets are now part of the obsolete part of the history.

In most cases, the obsolete set will be fully hidden to both the UI and discovery, hence users do not have to care about them unless they want to audit history rewriting operations.

Unstable changesets

While exploring the possibilities of the obsolete marker a bit further, you may end up with obsolete changesets which have non-obsolete children. There is two common ways to achieve this:

  • Pull a changeset based of an old version of a changeset [2].
  • Use a partial rewriting operation. For example amend on a changeset with children.

Non-obsolete changeset based on obsolete one are called unstable


Amend A into A' leaving B behind.

In this situation we can not consider B as obsolete. But we have all necessary data to detect B as an unstable branch of the history because its parent A is obsolete. In addition, we have enough data to automatically resolve this instability: we know that the new version of B parent (A) is A', We can deduce that we should rebase B on A' to get a stable history again.

Proper warnings should be issued when part of the history becomes unstable. The UI will be able to use the obsolete marker to automatically suggest a resolution to the user of even carry them out for him.

XXX details on automatic resolution for

  • movement
  • handling deletion
  • handling split on multiple head
[2]For this to happen one needs to explicitly enable exchange of draft changesets. See phase help for details.

The two parts of the obsolete set

The previous section shows that there could be two kinds of obsolete changesets:

  • an obsolete changeset with no or obsolete only descendants is called extinct.
  • an obsolete changeset with unstable descendants is called suspended.

Amend A and C leaving B behind.

In this example we have two obsolete changesets: C with no unstable children is extinct. A with unstable descendant (B) is suspended. B is unstable as before.

Because nothing outside the obsolete set default on extinct changesets, they can be safely hidden in the UI and even garbage collected. Suspended changesets have to stay visible and available until their unstable descendant are rewritten into stable version.

Conflicting rewrites

If people start to concurrently edit the same part of the history they will likely meet conflicting situations when a changeset has been rewritten in two different ways.


Conflicting rewrite of A into A' and A''

This kind of conflict is easy to detect with an obsolete marker because an obsolete changeset can have more than one new version. It may be seen as the multiple heads case. Mercurial warns you about this on pull. It is resolved the same way by a merge of A' and A'' that will keep the same parent than A' and A'' with two obsolete markers pointing to both A and A'


TODO: Add a schema of the resolution. (merge A' and A'' with A as ancestor and graft the result of A^)

Allowing multiple new changesets to obsolete a single one allows to distinguish a split changeset from a history rewriting conflict.

Reliable history

Obsolete marker help to smooth rewriting operation process. However they do not change the fact that you should only rewrite the mutable part of the history. The phase concept enforces this rule by explicitly defining a public immutable set of changesets. Rewriting operations refuse to work on public changesets, but there are still some corner cases where previously rewritten changesets are made public.

Special rules apply for obsolete markers pointing to public changesets:

  • Public changesets are excluded from the obsolete set (public changesets are never hidden or candidate to garbage collection)
  • newer version of a public changeset are called latecomer and highlighted as an error case.

Solving such an error is easy. Because we know what changeset a latecomer tries to rewrite, we can easily compute a smaller changeset containing only the change from the old public to the new latecomer.


add a schema


The obsolete marker is a powerful concept that allows mercurial to safely handle history rewriting operations. It is a new type of relation between Mercurial changesets which tracks the result of history rewriting operations.

This concept is simple to define and provides a very solid base for:

  • Very fast history rewriting operations,
  • auditable and reversible history rewriting process,
  • clean final history,
  • sharing and collaborating on the mutable part of the history,
  • gracefully handling history rewriting conflicts,
  • various history rewriting UI’s collaborating with an underlying common API.
Comparison on solution [3]
Solution Remove changeset locally Works on any point of your history Propagation Collaboration Speed Access to older version
Strip + + - -
Reference + + + -
Obsolete + + ++ ++ + +
[3]To preserve good tradition in comparison table, an overwhelming advantage goes to the defended solution.