navaneeth.suresh added a comment.
In D6686#98006 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6686#98006>, @pulkit wrote: > In D6686#97957 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6686#97957>, @navaneeth.suresh wrote: > >> I just found that this change is not required while creating D6694 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6694>. We will be needing the nodes which we are removing for later in case of a partial unshelve. >> The stripbased approach of unshelve failed on the change in D6694 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6694> on having this change. Should I abandon this? > > I think this change is required. A nice way to figure out will be to add the test which you added and not make the change in code and see whether do we remove the extra cset or not. Yes, this change is required. D6694 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6694> is modified and rebased on top of this change. REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6686/new/ REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6686 To: navaneeth.suresh, #hg-reviewers Cc: pulkit, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
