graft problem

[Matt Mackall]

On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 19:52 +0200, mk-lists at email.de wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > Looking at your graph below, it absolutely is an ancestor.
> Yep.
> 
> > For some reason you have several changesets that claim to be grafts, but
> > are actually branch merges. How did you do that?
> I guess that's because these grafts stopped due to conflicts which I had to resolve before I could proceed committing the changes.

Possibly. We should probably arrange that graft leaves things in a state
that committing after a graft rather than graft --continue does
something more sensible.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.