On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:55 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > It's not a new "line of history" of any sense that we typically sling that > phrase.
I guess I was thinking that even though this was moved, internally it was a copy + delete. So what if it had just been a copy only? We would never expect the history from the origin to follow into the copy in that scenario (as opposed to just staying in the origin). So I at least think it is a related but new line of history from the point of copy? -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
