"Bert Huijben" <b...@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
