That's for adding an ancestor, right?  That's a very rare use-case, I
never used it even once.

And, I still fail to understand how it results in duplicate -- if it
is already part of ancestry, why adopt it again?

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 30.01.2014, at 17:37, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why in the world would we have the same VersionInfo twice in the same
>> ancestry tree?
>>
>
> simple: 'adopt as ancestor'
> There.
>
>
>> Are there any examples in any of our trunk packages?
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMO, there's another thing worth doing, and that is sorting and
>>>> uniqueifying the history.  I see duplicate entries in the ancestry which
>>>> causes it to bloat (I suspect this happens on e.g. merge, but I'm not sure).
>>>> I have seen my manual attempts at uniqueifying ancestry shrink significantly
>>>> the size of mcz files.
>>>
>>>
>>> We could may be uses Chris' unique registry idea to have canonical instances
>>> of VersionInfo. That would save memory in the image. We could also change
>>> the mcz format to allow references between nodes in the ancestry tree so
>>> that  there's no duplicate information there. That would save space inside
>>> mcz files.
>>>
>>> But the tree structure contains important information, and collapsing the
>>> tree into a linear history would prevent MC from doing merges properly.
>>>
>>> Colin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>