two heads have no common ancestor

[Matt Mackall]

On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 12:23 -0500, Scott Palmer wrote:
> I just did this intentionally as well and I wonder if I shouldn't have.
>  Two colleagues mis-communicated and started on the same project
> independently, both committing revision 0 to separate repos.  When one of
> them went to commit to a shared repo Mercurial correctly claimed it was
> unrelated.  I forced things knowing full well that it would create two
> roots and the merge went fine.
> 
> But am I asking for trouble?  It's early so history and hashes don't matter
> to me yet. I can start a new repo with a single root if that is going to
> save me some headaches in the future.  Should I?

Mercurial itself has had two roots for many years, dating to when we
merged in a third party extension's history. I won't be doing this again
because it's messy, but it hasn't caused much grief in practice. I doubt
even most of the main contributors are aware of it.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.