This should have gone to the list.
> Begin forwarded message:
> > From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <email@example.com>
> > I've tripped on a problem in the merge logic. Here is the question.
> > If I say "merge that thing and this thing", the logic finds the nearest
> > common ancestor and does the merge. This follows Josh's logic -- I claim
> > credit.
> > The question is whether we ever need to be able to get the branch and
> > version of the common ancestor. Is it important to be able to say what
> > common point was?
> Sure, but that should be easily derivable. Each object should know its
> immediate ancestor, and we should be able to simply follow those back
> we hit a match.
> > If so, a back pointer needs to exist in the entity data structure. I'm
> > trying to figure out if this is necessary.
> I'd say it's necessary. What's *not* necessary, is for an object to know
> anything at all about its descendents.
> "The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously."
> - Hubert Humphrey