On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Chris Muller wrote:

>>> 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.

So, you would rather break the images of everyone who had updated before 
the suggested removal of the verions?

Levente

>
> - Chris