computing the resulting inventory from the merge changeset

[duchier at ps.uni-sb.de]

Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> writes:

> It does not look correct, because you're still doing things in more than
> two phases.  In my view, the form used in the filesystem manipulation is
> the simplest way to ensure it is correct.
>
> Here are the two phases as I see them:
> 1. remove the old names, in children-to-parents order
> 2. insert the new names, in parents-to-children order

I really thought that was what I was doing, but perhaps you are
concerned about the "deletion" phase following the "excision" phase.
I'll have to think about it some more and deepen my understanding.
Ultimately the algorithm should be provably correct.

> I actually was suggesting another set of cases.  I've provided
> details below.

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide these cases.

> Since you are not doing phase 2

Actually, I thought that the 3rd loop was doing that, but perhaps
there is yet another gap in my understanding (very likely)

Cheers,

--Denys