From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323302036D for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2017 02:32:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751767AbdKYCcF (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:32:05 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:60378 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751748AbdKYCcF (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:32:05 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1741C2F37; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:32:02 -0500 (EST) 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=GXVBl1ItklDXWDCscbUfauWDHTw=; b=aekSwn 6ouJQcboS9DjZCY24Hx0In4Mk/bve7l7d1hVvkSUWawRX2rcgPJ4WM2qR01Cgjqd eKkPlTPqF+CWYAyHlIkBBskgyx2itCSut1Ph4DC3oKuZLsed+KhluU4ZOiE7MHJC gjeSICCSpeiOw2fKQG+mtv7UbqUQP5XvZy6AE= 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=k411SAGtxLISv46CtAoMeVvA9DXYfS6f K7f2lgZk/1S//oJ93BtW5vgbP1YPj2DNXAIY3oy3Ti5bdAeziNfFgGjYWiVnG6G4 lxiISu+IOiF8Hp0Ezyfek4RxfjRsV4Bi26zGlqMVZuOL0Sht+i/DxBqZmlq08QXn lXNeEPyKLqY= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A941AC2F36; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:32:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEEF8C2F34; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:32:01 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Lars Schneider , Git List , Johannes Schindelin , Shawn Pearce , Jonathan Nieder , Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: RFC: Native clean/smudge filter for UTF-16 files References: <20171124180401.GB29190@sigill> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:32:00 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20171124180401.GB29190@sigill> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 24 Nov 2017 13:04:01 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D18B346C-D188-11E7-B791-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > So anyway, that is an alternate strategy, but I think I like "canonical > in-repo text is utf-8" approach a lot more, since then git operations > work consistently. There are still a few rough edges (e.g., I'm not sure Sounds like a good way forward. > if you could apply a utf-8 patch directly to a utf-16 working tree file. > Certainly not using "patch", but I'm not sure how well "git apply" would > handle that case either). But I think it would mostly Just Work as long > as people were willing to set their encoding attributes. It should work (or fail) just like applying LF patch to CRLF working tree, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Thanks.