IIRC, The save() command won't generate any Feed item, so the unified feed entry would be either "xxx triaged this task" or "xxx added a comment". Also, for each comment added, a new Feed item will be generated, which is probably not what you'd like.

I think you can get around this by adding a Create xaction to the list, which will instruct the Feed system to hide all xactions and just show "xxx created this" - see T15754. You could even create a custom xaction for "xxx cloned this from that", but that's probably a bit more involved.

I'm curious about the use-case for copying comments as well - I'm guessing that there's some extra data that's added in the comments?

Overall, this looks like it's in the right direction - I don't see anything "wrong" with this implementation.

I'm curious about the use-case for copying comments as well - I'm guessing that there's some extra data that's added in the comments?

I added that because I was inspired by that on another platform. But I removed it because I think it will not generate enough value.

IIRC, The save() command won't generate any Feed item, so the unified feed entry would be either "xxx triaged this task" or "xxx added a comment". Also, for each comment added, a new Feed item will be generated, which is probably not what you'd like.
I think you can get around this by adding a Create xaction to the list, which will instruct the Feed system to hide all xactions and just show "xxx created this" - see T15754. You could even create a custom xaction for "xxx cloned this from that", but that's probably a bit more involved.

I added two transactions, one for the source and one for the target.

This is what it looks like on the target:

{F2114171}

And this on the source:

{F2114184}

Overall, this looks like it's in the right direction - I don't see anything "wrong" with this implementation.

Thanks for your feedback!

I think I'm pleased with it now and would it called finished. I hope I did not miss anything.

(The images aren't public/attached, so I can't see them)

In D25558#16391, @avivey wrote:

(The images aren't public/attached, so I can't see them)

Fixed that.

From my standpoint, this would be finished. How does this work that this change can land on the main branch?