Re: issue 3899 (copying conflict victims)

"Bert Huijben" <bert_at_qqmail.nl> writes:

>> I agree that the references to the A/f files should not exist. But I
>> think that that's just a symptom of the issue that a copy of a conflicted
>> item shouldn't be conflicted.
>
> Isn't that the same behavior as we had in 1.0-1.6: a copy is just a copy of
> the actual node in the working copy with metadata changed to track its
> history, without copying the conflict?

1.6 also copies the conflict, so the copied file shows up as conflicted.

> Any reason why we can't simply define: copy doesn't copy conflicts?
> (My guess is that we just copy conflicts now, because it was easier to just
> copy the db row)

You mean the copy would work, but the copied file would not be marked
conflicted? If this is a text file the conflict markers will be present
in the file, is it OK to lose the conflict status for such a file? Also
what if the copy is part of a move, should all the conflicts in a moved
tree disappear?

A related issue is copies of files in a changelist. At present the
copies will also appear in the changelist.

-- 
Philip