Re: Unresolved issues #2

From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Date: May 9, 2006, 11:40 UTC
Message-ID: <1147174809.2794.12.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v4q065hq0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 01:15 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> 
> * Message-ID:
> <4fb292fa0604290630r19edd7ejf88642e33b350d1d@mail.gmail.com>
>   Content-type charset for send-email (Bertrand Jacquin)
> 
>   The output from format-patch by default is unmarked, which
>   means the commit message part is UTF-8 (by strong convention),
>   and the contents of the diff is whatever the contents of the
>   file is encoded in.

Email without a Content-Type: header is supposed to be ASCII. If it contains 8-bit characters, it's invalid. It'll be interpreted by different systems in different ways -- not necessarily as UTF-8. Some may even just reject it, on grounds of RFC non-compliance.

>   David Woodhouse did a patch to allow specifying charset on the
>   command line (and default to UTF-8) which is a move in the
>   right direction, but Bertrand's system seems to have trouble
>   with it.

I thought Bertrand then confirmed that he was having trouble _before_ applying my patch, too? His response when I asked it it appears without my patch was "[it] appear without in 1.3.1 and I can't seed mail with too. Also, 1.2.4 work fine here (without patch)."

Show 6 quoted lines

>   I think if we were to do this we probably need to teach
>   format-patch to optionally do multi-part.  We may not
>   necessarily want to mark the payload to be in the same
>   encoding as the commit message (not that git-apply cares -- to
>   it, the payload is just 8-bit unencoded text, but we would
>   want to protect it from getting mangled by e-mail transport).

I'm not sure about that. The payload is patches, isn't it? That's just text, too -- we aren't going to deal with diffs of binary content very well _anyway_, are we?

Obviously, there's nothing to stop people from storing binary blobs in GIT, but unless you want to start sending actual _blobs_ as attachments instead of sending patches, I think there's no need to play with MIME multipart stuff.

I've no particular objection to it, but it's a separate issue to Bertanrd's. That's a bug-fix, while multipart is an RFE without much point, IMO.

-- 
dwmw2