From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812F11F619 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:26:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726956AbgBYW0l (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:26:41 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:59638 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726130AbgBYW0l (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:26:41 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C1AB1BE1; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:26:39 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ewicmpP/7/s3QdUsJJsKDFrCnhE=; b=LxMUAD hN16AqVzCL1mvDJjnGEDQbFGmuwqv3MONUjaBUS/k3VOGSPsnQQ43wqgu5PeQwXs 5xioI0CnRjpaX5q6kb/nu+xKTujp8UQ9FKWslrVJv5mToBOXlc/Iw0O9UKt52ZKD HviWCHPWrfQehUBWjTZcPfE9fGS+KIsqElKyM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=H9XUW4VL1GKFXVj9HFgN+qFtq/P42l9y Jq0Iq2YzJ1VYjSSFvpSpK/F9ylYeIkp//Gy4Q5A/8nJPglYeTqLu9diWwqlbZrNW dionvVY4KNfTf1KSzZBDGNmhIjol7LJe4KoOuFcUcSckbpBT3iKnz4kCppTi8Whh Al7JlD7VVXI= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF0FB1BE0; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:26:39 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 870FAB1BDF; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:26:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Emily Shaffer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/15] bugreport: add git-remote-https version References: <20200220015858.181086-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20200220015858.181086-8-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20200220232812.GH2447@google.com> <20200225220838.GB212281@google.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:26:34 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20200225220838.GB212281@google.com> (Emily Shaffer's message of "Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:08:38 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E281EE28-581D-11EA-8177-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Emily Shaffer writes: > How about if I localize the bugreport template, headers, and formatted > comments (e.g. "3745 local loose objects"), and include a tip in 'git > help bugreport' suggesting that if it doesn't look right, maybe the user > wants to run it with 'LANG= LANGUAGE= git bugreport' to ensure it > actually gets generated? I think that will be what is going to happen anyway in the real world. We'd spend a reasonable effort for localization (and I personally am perfectly OK if the effort for the initial round is "almost zero"), but make sure C-locale is left as an escape hatch. > I had another thought, actually, that this is maybe semantically similar > problem to the malformed config we discussed earlier in the review. Does > it make sense to include some kind of --safemode flag to 'git' which > asks it to not perform localization and not read configs? I suspect that "git --safemode" would always end up being buggy than running "git" under LANG=C LC_ALL=C GIT_CONFIG=/dev/null or something like that ;-) Wouldn't it defeat more than 30% of the value of the tool if we do not read and report the contents of the configuration file(s)?