On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:07 PM Torsten Bögershausen [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:53:35PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:

This one is good:

quoted

+     if (unset || !strcmp(arg, "abort"))
+             reencode_mode = REENCODE_ABORT;

But here: does it make sense to use REENCODE_YES/NO to be more consistant ?

quoted

+     else if (!strcmp(arg, "yes"))
+             reencode_mode = REENCODE_PLEASE;
+     else if (!strcmp(arg, "no"))
+             reencode_mode = REENCODE_NEVER;

Didn't realize there was any such convention, and even have difficulty
finding it with grep (CONTAINS_{YES,NO} appears to be the only example
I can find), but the alternate wording seems fine; I'm happy to adopt
it.

quoted

+             case REENCODE_ABORT:
+                     die("Encountered commit-specific encoding %s in commit "
+                         "%s; use --reencode=<mode> to handle it",

Should we be more helpfull and say !use --reencode=[yes|no] to handle it ?

Sounds like a good idea; I'll adjust it.

quoted

+     sed "s/wer/i18n-no-recoding/" iso-8859-7.fi |
+             (cd new &&
+              git fast-import &&
+              # The commit object, if not re-encoded, is 240 bytes.
+              # Removing the "encoding iso-8859-7\n" header would drops 20
+              # bytes.  Re-encoding the Pi character from \xF0 in
+              # iso-8859-7 to \xCF\x80 in utf-8 would add a byte.  I would
+              # grep for the specific bytes, but Windows lamely does not

This is somewhat unclear to me. What does Windows not allow ?

quoted

+              # allow that, so just search for the expected size.
+              test 240 -eq "$(git cat-file -s i18n-no-recoding)" &&
+              # Also make sure the commit has the "encoding" header
+              git cat-file commit i18n-no-recoding >actual &&
+              grep ^encoding actual)
+'

Windows does not allow specifying the bytes I want to grep for on the
command line; it'll munge the command line, resulting in it searching
for something other than what I wanted to be searched for, and return
the wrong answer based on searching for the wrong thing.  See
https://public-inbox.org/git/f8eb246f-a936-e9df-4bb4-068b86a62baf@kdbg.org/
and https://public-inbox.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1905101551110.44@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet/.

My comment was already pretty long because it looks like a crazy way
to run the test and thus it feels like I need to explain it.  And the
craziness is based on how Windows behaves; it seems insane to me that
Windows decides to munge user data (in the form of the command line
provided), so much so that it makes me wonder if I really understood
Hannes' and Dscho's explanations of what it is doing.  (How could
anyone have thought munging user data was a good idea?)  Anyway, long
story short, I'm not sure how to explain it correctly and succinctly.
Any suggestions?


Elijah