Le mardi 26 décembre 2023 à 18:27 +0200, Dmitry Gutov a écrit :
How about the attached patch instead?
Skipping expand-file-name altogether would likely drop the respective
entries from history as well.
I'm curious whether expand-file-name hits the remote every time when
called, though (100 times the latency would be a wait too long). If
you
have remote entries in history, could you try and see how the
performance is when working on that remote, too?
I tested your patch. It works well: no error and no perceived latency.