The tree at copied-here should only have WORKING nodes. No BASE nodes.
If it has BASE nodes, then that is a bug.
The tree is distinguished as a copy because of the copyfrom_*
information at the operation root. All the children have empty
copyfrom_* data. If you make a second copy into that tree, then that
new subtree will have copyfrom_* at its root.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:48, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Consider copying an unmodified directory. Assume the source of the
> copy exists in the repository, the target does not. The copy could be
> repo-to-wc or wc-to-wc. The result of the copy is an added directory
> in the working copy with a working_node and no base_node. The
> working_node has copyfrom data to mark this as a copy rather than a
> plain add. I believe this is the correct behaviour.
>
> If the source directory contains a subdir the copied directory also
> contains a subdir (assuming a full depth copy). At present the copied
> subdir has a base_node and no working_node and it doesn't have
> copyfrom data as there is no such data in base_node. Is that the
> correct behaviour or a bug? Does it make sense to for a node to have
> a base_node when the parent has only a working_node? If the subdir
> should really have a working_node instead of a base_node how do we
> distinguish a copied subdir from a plain added subdir? Do we set
> copyfrom data to the subdir working_node? I thought copyfrom only
> gets set on the root of the copy.
>
> --
> Philip
>
Received on 2010-03-22 18:48:50 CET