Comment 15 for bug 1315552

Any of the options I listed would be a non-trivial effort, but some would be more work than others.

Also, while (1) would be the least developer-time effort, it would also fail to maintain the overall ordering intended by the backend function. That's not to say that the ordering is being honored now (it's not guaranteed to do so today, per the code), but ordering would be made either systemically incorrect, or randomly less correct, all depending on the details of when copies were created and other variables. But duplicates could certainly be removed that way. IOW, trading one bug for another (or bigger) one.

(4) is the only real way I see to accomplish the intent of the original. We can make it not break existing templates by providing backward compatibility, though.