It’s such an odd design decision.

I could see ignoring the old undo data or warning before discarding it but just silently wiping it is so user hostile it’s hard to comprehend.

▲

loeg an hour ago | parent [-]

If you ignore it, do you continue allowing edits to the file? Now undo history is corrupt and useless anyway. Or do you disallow editing until the user manually deletes some hidden, implementation-detail file for a feature they probably never use?

▲

xoa an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If making a breaking change to the format of the file, why in root's name would neovim not just make its own new file!? Import the vim version if that's desired into persistent-undo.neovim and then just go from there. I don't understand their choice here at all nor why you're acting like this is complicated or there was some need for them to reuse the exact same file as vim?

	▲	14 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	bot403 14 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		To support you further, why would neovim users have any illusion there would be cross compatibility between undo files? Separate undo files seems the obvious and expected choice.

▲

physicalecon an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]