From 72ccdbf91d556df34495e04b8ea1ceba17f512eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:38:14 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] comment --- ...comment_2_e5b43f5733181fba9f79ae0035b354ef._comment | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/set_metadata_leaks_from_one___40__staged__41___key_to_another_during_rename_of_file/comment_2_e5b43f5733181fba9f79ae0035b354ef._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/set_metadata_leaks_from_one___40__staged__41___key_to_another_during_rename_of_file/comment_2_e5b43f5733181fba9f79ae0035b354ef._comment b/doc/bugs/set_metadata_leaks_from_one___40__staged__41___key_to_another_during_rename_of_file/comment_2_e5b43f5733181fba9f79ae0035b354ef._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..7916814206 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/set_metadata_leaks_from_one___40__staged__41___key_to_another_during_rename_of_file/comment_2_e5b43f5733181fba9f79ae0035b354ef._comment @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 2""" + date="2017-09-26T18:36:48Z" + content=""" +Other than the always-popular "make it configurable", +I wonder if it would suffice to simply output a note when copying metadata +from the (presumed) old version of the file? Then there would be no +confusion about why the metadata got set. +"""]]