Doing an update like that would force a merge, but there was nothing to merge. I made no changes. It was a read only (to me) repository. It should have just wor

Doing an update like that would force a merge, but there was nothing to merge. I made no changes. It was a read only (to me) repository. It should have just worked, and would have had someone else on the team not rewritten history. I'm aware there are more options than delete and clone. My options were to spend time trying to fix my clone to which I had made no changes, or I could delete and reclone from the origin. The pragmatic solution was obvious and got me back to work more quickly than I would have otherwise been able to. The fact that there are more options to allow fixing a broken clone are nice, but irrelevant. Had git not allowed removing published history, it would not have been an issue. I'm all for the ability to amend history, which fossil does allow (to an extent). What it doesn't support deletion of old history followed by the creation of new history.