# The instability Principle

XXX starts by talking about getting ride of changeset.

DVCSes bring two new major concepts to the version control scene:

• History is organized as a robust DAG,
• History can be rewritten.

However, the two concepts are in contradiction:

To achieve a robust history, three key elements are gathered in changesets:

• Full snapshot of the versioned content,
• Reference to the previous full snapshot used to build the new one,
• A description of the change which leads from the old content to the new content.

All three elements are used to compute a unique hash that identifies the changeset (with various other metadata). This identification is a key part of DVCS design.

This is a very useful property because changing B's parent means changing B's content too. This requires the creation of another changeset, which is semantically good.

To avoid duplication, the older changeset is usually discarded from accessible history. I'm calling them obsolete changesets.

But rewriting a changeset with children does not change the children's parents! And because children of the rewritten changeset still depend on the older "dead" version of the changeset, we cannot get rid of this dead version.

Schema base,  A and A' and B.


I'm calling these children unstable because they are based on a dead changeset and prevent people from getting rid of it.

This instability is an unavoidable consequence of the strict dependency of changesets. Rewriting history always needs to take it into account and provide a way to rewrite the descendants of the new changeset to avoid coexistence of the old and new versions of a rewritten changeset.

## Everybody is working around the issue

I'm not claiming that rewriting history is impossible. People have been successfully doing it for years. However they all need to work around instability. Several workaround strategies exist.

### Rewriting all at once

The simplest way to avoid instability is to ensure rewriting operations always end in a stable situation. This is achieved by rewriting all affected changesets at the same time.

Rewriting all descendants at the same time when rewriting a changeset.

Schema!


Several Mercurial commands apply it: rebase, collapse, histedit. Mercurial also refuses to amend changesets with descendants. The git branch design enforces this approach in git too.

However, DVCS are distributed. This means that you do not control what happens outside your repository. Once a changeset has been exchanged outside, there is no way to be sure it does not have descendants somewhere else. Therefore if you rewrite changeset that exists elsewhere, you can't eradicate the risk of instability.

### Do not rewrite exchanged changesets

To work around the issue above, Mercurial introduced phases, which prevent you from rewriting shared changesets and ensure others can't pull certain changesets from you. But this is a very frustrating limitation that prevents you to efficiently sharing, reviewing and collaborating on mutable changesets.

In the Git world, they use another approach to prevent instability. By convention only a single developer works on a changeset contained in a named branch. But once again this is a huge blocker for collaborating. Moreover clueless people will mess up social convention soon or later.

### Lose the DAG robustness

The other approach 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 but two major feature are lost in the process:

graceful merge: MQ uses plain patch to store changeset contents, which has problems in changing context. Applying your queue becomes very painful when context changes. A quilt queue is by definition a linear queue, increasing risk of conflict.

It is possible to collaborate over versioned MQ! But you are going to have a lot of trouble.

### Ignore conflicts

Another ignored issue is a conflicting rewrite of the same changeset. If a changeset is rewritten two times we have two newer versions, and duplicated history is complicated to merge.

Mercurial work around by

The "One set of mutable changset == One developer" mantra is also a way to work around conflicting rewriting of changeset. If two different people are able to

The git branch model allows overwriting changeset version by another one, but it does not care about divergent version. It is the equivalent of "common ftp" source management for changesets.

## Facing The Danger Once And For All

Above we saw that the more effort you put to avoid instability, the more options you deny. And even the most restrictive workflow can't guarantee 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 am developing a new feature for Mercurial called "Obsolete markers". Obsolete markers have two key properties:

• Any "old" changeset we want to get rid of is explicitly marked as "obsolete" by history rewriting operations.

By explicitly marking the obsolete part of the history, we will be able to easily detect instability situation.

• 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 edit conflicts [1] .

 [1] Edit conflicts is another major obstable to collaboration. See the section dedicated to obsolete marker for details.

### Improved robustness == improved simplicity

This proposal should first be seen as a safety measure.

It allows detecting instability as soon as possible.

$hg pull added 3 changeset +2 unstable changeset (do you want "hg evolve" ?) working directory parent is obsolete!$ hg push
outgoing unstable changesets
(use "hg evolve" or force the push)


And it should not not encourage people to create instability.

$hg up 42$ hg commit --amend
changeset have descendant.
$hg commit --amend -f +5 unstable changeset$ hg rebase -D --rev 40::44