The Unstability Principle
An intrinsic contradiction
XXX starts by talking about getting ride of changeset.
DVCS bring two new major concepts to the Version Control Scene:
- Organisation of the history with robust DAG,
- Mutation of history.
However, the two concepts opposes them self:
To achieve a robust history, three key elements are gathered in changeset:
- Full snapshot of the versioned content,
- Reference to the previous full snapshot used to build the new one,
- A description of the change who lead from the old content to the new old.
All three elements are used generate a unique hash that identify the changeset (with various other metadata). This identification is a key part of DVCS design.
XXX missing lines ?
Schema base, A, B and B'
The old changeset is usually discarded t in DVCS history.
Schema base, A and A' and B.
Rewriting a changeset with children does not changes children parent! And because children of the rewritten changeset still depends on the older "dead" version of the changeset with can not get ride of this dead version.
This is a very useful property because Changing B parent means changing B content too. This require the creation of another changeset.
I'll qualify those children as unstable because they are based one a dead changeset and prevent people to get ride of it.
This instability is an unavoidable consequence of the strict dependency of changese. History Rewriting history alway need to take it in account and provide a way to rewrite the descendant on the new changeset to avoid coexistence of the old and new version of a rewritten changeset..
Everybody is working around the issue
I'm not claiming that rewriting history is impossible. People are successfully doing for years. However they all need to work around this unstability:
Rewriting all at once
The simplest way to avoid unstability is to ensure rewritting operation always ends in a stable situation. This is achieve by rewriting all impacted changeset at the same time.
rewritting all descendants at the same time that the rewritting of a changeset.
Several Mercurial command follow this idea: rebase, collapse, histedit. Mercurial also refuse to amend changeset with descendant. The git brnach design enforce such approach in git too.
However, DVCS are Distributed. This means that you do not control what happen outside your repository. Once a changeset have been exchanged outside, you can't be sure of it's descendant. Therefore** if you rewritte changeset that exists elsewere, you can't erradicate the risk of unstability.**
Do not rewrite exchanged changeset
To work around this issue mercurial introduced phases that prevent you to rewrite exchanged changeset and ensure other can't pull certain changeset from you. But this is a very frustrating limitation that prevent you to efficiently share, review and collaborate on mutable changeset.
Git world use another approach to prevent unstability. By convention only a single developper works on a changeset contained in a named branch. But once again this is a huge blocker for collaborating and clueless people will mess up social convention soon or later.
Loose the DAG robustness
The other approach use in Mercurial is to keep the mutable part of the history outside the DVCS constraint. This is the MQ approach of sticking a quilt queue over Mercurial.
This allow much more flexible workflow two major feature are lost in the process:
- Graceful merge. MQ use plain-patch to store changeset content and patch have trouble to apply in changing context. applying you queu can because very painful if context changeset.
- easy branching. A quilt queue is by definition a linear queue.
It is possible to collaborate over versionned mq! But you are going ahead a lot of trouble.
Facing The Danger Once And For All
The more effort you put to avoid instability, the more option you deny. And even most restrictive work flow can't garantee that instability will never show up!
Obsolete marker can handle the job
It is time to provide a full featured solution to deal with instability and to stop working around the issue! This is why I developing a new feature for mercurial called "Obsolete marker". Obsolete marker have two key property:
Any changeset is we want to get ride of is explicitly marked as "obsolete" by history rewritting operation.
By explicitly marking the obsolete part of the history, we will be able to easily detect appearance of unstability.
Relations between old and new version of changesets are tracked by Obsolete markers.
By Storing a meta-history of changeset evolution we are able to easily resolve instability and edition conflict  .
|||edition conflict is another major obstable to collaboration. See the section dedicated to obsolete marker for details.|
Improving robusness improves simplicity
This proposal should first be seen as a safety measure.
It allow to detect unstability as soon as possible
- $ hg pull added 3 changeset +2 unstable changeset (do you want "hg stabilize" ?) working directory parent is obsolete! $ hg push outgoing unstable changesets (use "hg stabilize" or force the push)
And should not not encourage people to create unstability
$ hg up 42 $ hg commit --amend changeset have descendant. $ hg commit --amend -f +5 unstable changeset
$ hg rebase -D --rev 40::44 rebasing already obsolete changeset 42:AAA will conflict with newer version 48:BBB
While allowing powerful feature
"kill" changeset remotely.
track resulting changeset when submitting patch//pull request.
Focus on what you do:
I do not like the "all at once" model of history rewriting. I'm confortable with unstability and obsolete marker offer all the tool to safely create and handle unstability locally.