Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:34:37 +0200:
> On 25.05.2011 06:34, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 03:00, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >>> 2011/5/24 Branko Čibej <brane_at_e-reka.si>:
> >>>> On 24.05.2011 11:02, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> > I'm fully agree with Bert that moving truepath conversion to
> > libsvn_client as bad idea and would introduct gigantic slowdown for
> > some Windows clients.
> Hmm ... I have a hard time imagining why this conversion would be so
> expensive, but I'll take your word for it. There is of course another
> option ... the exact opposite in fact: to take the truepath conversion
> _out_ of libsvn_client. :) But then you'd have to require every client
> to tweak the target array exactly right for each command.
> I don't like the is_move idea; it's too hacky, and too specific to one
> single use case. Perhaps the target array could be changed to contain
> both "given name" and "true name", but that would require rev'ing most
> of the libsvn_client API, which sounds even worse ... sigh.
Or we could make the helper API return an array of truepaths and an
array of non-trupath'd paths, so that most callers can just pass the
first one (unmodified) to libsvn_client?
> It's time to think about why exactly, and when, we need that truepath
> conversion, before layering yet another hack on top of it.
> -- Brane
Received on 2011-05-25 10:32:31 CEST