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.mar...@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 >
