On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 01:02:40PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote: > That doesn't really make much sense. Only the test suite is intersted in > /stable/ key ordering, and that's just because the test result > comparison functions require it.
I don't think they do at present because the test suite would be failing left and right if they did. Looking at the code, we build a tree from status output and then compare this tree to an expected tree. It looks as if the order of paths in status output is irrelevant. > Users will not care about stable output unless it's sorted. Sure. All I'm saying is that if the stable ordering happens to be sorted, we're saving a qsort(). I don't care about an extra qsort() myself. But Bert apparently does, and I'm trying to reach consensus. > On the subject of hash functions, I doubt you can go much faster than > what APR already has, except for saving the few bytes of the randomizer > added to the key. I didn't actually mean to make the claim that it was faster. I just blindly believe the docstring of svn_hash__make() which claims this.
