root-ids changing for some merges

[vila]

>>>>> Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:

    > On 11-07-06 11:55 AM, vila wrote:
    >>>>>>> Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:

    >> > It's not helpful to repeat this without the *why*.
    >> 
    >> Hence that test added at the end of the mail you're replying to so you
    >> can see for yourself: confusing and useless renames. I'd rather keep the
    >> root-id and avoid them completely.

    > Yeah, but the repetition isn't helpful.  I already knew what you
    > wanted.

Why asking then ?

    >  "Confusing and useless renames" would have been an excellent "why",
    > especially in the first email.

Right, I would certainly have said it had I understood what was going on
at this time. I was EODing and wanted to raise the issue before leaving.

<snip/>

    >> AIUI, there are only two cases where we want to propagate the root-it:
    >> - merging into an empty tree,

    > Merging into an empty tree is different, because there's no
    > existing root.

Right, we weren't talking about the same kind of empty tree, an empty
working tree *has* a root id.

Hope this help clarify the misunderstandings and thanks for your prompt
reaction and the patch that is now on pqm.

        Vincent