Absorbed into Valentin's patch (which was still draft and near the tip)

For the record, I'm -1 on this, for the following reasons:

This can (should) be grafted on stable with no conflicts.

I've made this not dependent on the merge.update() changes, so it can now be queued separately.

In D9067#136215, @pulkit wrote:

In D9067#136183, @martinvonz wrote:

In D9067#136182, @pulkit wrote:

While I agree that resulting API is better than the previous one, however I think:

• This is an API breakage we can prevent
• merge.update() used to do a different thing before and now does something else before

Want me to add a new merge.plain_update() or something like that instead?

In D9067#136183, @martinvonz wrote:

In D9067#136182, @pulkit wrote:

While I agree that resulting API is better than the previous one, however I think:

• This is an API breakage we can prevent
• merge.update() used to do a different thing before and now does something else before

Want me to add a new merge.plain_update() or something like that instead?

Although, we don't provide any API's compatibility but preventing such breakages when we can sound a good thing to me. I think we can leave hg.updaterepo() as it is.

Sure, I can do that. So just leave it without callers you mean? Or drop this patch completely?