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 <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: > >>> 2011/5/24 Branko Čibej <br...@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
