Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] t4041, t4205, t6006, t7102: use iso8859-1 rather than iso-8859-1

Alexey Shumkin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

	Both "iso8859-1" and "iso-8859-1" are understood as latin-1
	by modern platforms, but the latter is not understood by
	older platforms;update tests to use the former.

        This is in line with 3994e8a9 (t4201: use ISO8859-1 rather
	than ISO-8859-1, 2009-12-03), which did the same.

Yep, it whould be better, I thought to do like this but I didn't )

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Alexey Shumkin <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Sixt <redacted>

I do not recall this exact patch reviewed by J6t, but perhaps I
missed a message on the list?

I've reread 'SubmittingPatches' doc, and I can say I used "Reviewed-by"
incorrectly. Sorry for this. It must be "Suggested-by" there, I guess.

OK, then I'll queue this patch (but not 2-4/5 yet) with log message
amended.

Thanks.

On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:11:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Alexey Shumkin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

	Both "iso8859-1" and "iso-8859-1" are understood as latin-1
	by modern platforms, but the latter is not understood by
	older platforms;update tests to use the former.

        This is in line with 3994e8a9 (t4201: use ISO8859-1 rather
	than ISO-8859-1, 2009-12-03), which did the same.

Yep, it whould be better, I thought to do like this but I didn't )

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Alexey Shumkin <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Sixt <redacted>

I do not recall this exact patch reviewed by J6t, but perhaps I
missed a message on the list?

I've reread 'SubmittingPatches' doc, and I can say I used "Reviewed-by"
incorrectly. Sorry for this. It must be "Suggested-by" there, I guess.

OK, then I'll queue this patch (but not 2-4/5 yet) with log message
amended.

Excuse me, you've said "Ok" for 2/5 message, and then explained (as I
understood) then "subtle difference" between EOF and \EOF.
Should I change the message somehow?

Thanks.

-- 
Alexey Shumkin