On Thu, 2010-01-28, Julian Foad wrote: > Please take a look at the differences between these three files if you > will. I think they show two things. > > (1) They show that the 'copies' information in the 'transactions' table > is not properly updated: the transaction still thinks it has a node that > is a copy (node-rev 'i.1.f' copied from '/f-mov/e...@9'), but in fact that > node-rev was obliterated and so the copy information should be deleted > too.
I fixed (1) in r905283. - Julian
