Re: [PATCH/RFC] Change t0204-gettext-reencode-sanity.sh to pass under Mac OSX
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:53:14
2012/3/7 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 22:34, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
I think it's important to be pro-active about trying to spot any issues that might affect end users before they happen.The goal is noble, but asking the platform to perform an impossible task and subjectively judging if the failure mode is acceptable is not the way to do so, I would have to say.I leave it up to you whether you want to accept the patch to remove it, but with it included we at least *know* what the failure modes are, since we get user reports about it. That's the reason I put it in there to begin with. Because I have no idea how all these pieces play together with systems in the wild, and I'd like to pro-actively find out about that.Are we talking about the same specific test? What you said above all makes sense and I agreed that it is a noble goal, *if* and only if the test is about the case we *expect* to work. This particular one prepares a message that cannot possibly be transliterated to iso-8859-1 and asks the system to show it. What scenario do you have in mind that we (or the end user for that matter) might benefit by having this test?
E.g. if we find out that their implementation of gettext panics instead of showing question marks that means we'd have to pay special attention to that platform. Anyway, I admit that this is an obscure edge case. I really just like the idea of having complete knowledge (which we'll have in time since we get ported everywhere) about how the various aspects of our i18n implementation work. Having that information doesn't cost us a lot, in this case we can just amend the test to assert that on OSX the output should be the same as under the UTF-8 output.