computing the resulting inventory from the merge changeset

[duchier at ps.uni-sb.de]

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

> |>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 am sooo stupid :-/ I was so intent on the prima facie outline of the
direct algorithm that I never paused to think about what it meant to
be ordered from top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top.  Of course, it means
nothing unless it is with respect to a given partial order.  So the
source entries are ordered bottom-to-top with respect to the source
tree and the target entries are ordered top-to-bottom with respect to
the target tree.  They are most definitely not inverse of each other.

Now Aaron's doubts are making sense (although his test cases have not
proven sufficient to expose the logic flaw).  I will now fix my
algorithm accordingly.  Sorry for being such a dimwit.

--Denys