Re: [PATCH v2] pretty-options.txt: describe supported encoding

> > +       The encoding must be a system encoding supported by iconv(1),
> > +       otherwise this option will be ignored.
> > +       POSIX character maps used by iconv(1p) are not supported.
> 
> This paragraph is a bit hard to grok.
> 
> I think it is saying that the "-f frommap -t tomap" form in [*1*]
> that can use arbitrary character set description file is not
> supported, but "-f fromcode -t tocode" form, which also is what
> iconv_open() takes [*2*], is supported.  Am I reading it correctly?

> 
> What I am getting at is this.  Imagine average users who need to see
> their commits recoded to iso-8859-2.  They see "git log" has
> "--encoding=<encoding>" option, read the above paragraph and wonder
> if they are on the supported side or unsupported side of the above
> paragraph.  I want to make it easy for them to stop wondering.
> 
> For that purpose, "iconv(1) vs iconv(1p)" would not help them very
> much, especially considering that not all Git users are UNIX users
> (they probably do not even know what (1) and (1p) means).

> I think our end-user facing manual pages tend to avoid the latter.
> We do use "shall" in the RFC2119/BCP14 sense on the technical side
> of our documentation where we give requirements to the third-party
> implementations so that they can interoperate with us, but this is
> not such a description.
> 
> Thanks.