Comment 6 for bug 799157

Sergio Mena <email address hidden> wrote:
> What I am afraid I don't agree with is the "stat" and "fjnd" solution
> that you suggest: this solution greatly underperforms

With your approach, a user would have to walk the tree manually with
this script. For example, say they're looking for foo/bar/baz, they'd
have to run this tool to find foo, then again to find bar, then once
more to find baz. That is a pain to have to do.

This is a handy tool that probably won't be ran very often (not daily,
probably not even weekly) so I think performance gives way to easy of
use in this case.