>> So, Levente/Chris/David,
>> to fix this - do we delete the kks.801 from trunk, or alter kks.803 in the
>> inbox (which seems to fix the issue) to have both dtl.802 (it's current
>> parent) and kks.801 as both of its parents, which I believe
>> would solve the 'multi head' issue.
>
> Neither. The proper solution is to create a new version which merges the two
> branches. If the fix is in kks.803, then xxx.804 will contain the fix and
> have both kks.803 and kks.801 as ancestors.

Wow.

> It is well known that the MC model was not designed for projects of this size.

Right.

> But it would save almost nothing if that version were removed form the ancestry.

Your suggestion above puts "almost nothing" at up to no less than
three new versions in the ancestry for a one method fix.  It is not
just about disk space, or memory space, or exacerbating our unscalable
dimensions, but clutter, too.  Those are my rationale's for deleting.
I didn't catch any solid rationale for the idea of littering the
ancestry when we have the opportunity not to.

 - Chris