Re: git on MacOSX and files with decomposed utf-8 file names
- From
Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org>
- Date
- Jan 21, 2008, 23:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <C331E3F9-E177-4C10-B497-528ED08D1E1C@sb.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20080121230053.GA317@mit.edu>
On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:00 PM, Theodore Tso wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 05:46:27PM -0500, Kevin Ballard wrote: >> I find it amusing that you keep arguing against having git treat >> filenames >> as unicode when, if you had actually taken my advice and read my >> previous >> email talking about "ideal" vs "practical"... > > If by "ideal" you mean a world where 100% of all computers were > designed by Steve Jobs, you might have a point.
NO NO NO NO NO. READ MY EMAIL. STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
The most frustrating thing about this thread is everybody keeps arguing about what they *assume* I'm talking about without actually bothering to read what I'm saying.
Show 9 quoted lines
>> In other words, I was trying to illustrate that >> HFS+ isn't wrong, it's just different, and the difference is >> causing the >> problem. > > And if you want to interoperate with the rest of the world, where at > least count over 92% of computers are NOT running HFS+, then "Thinking > Different" is indeed causing the problem, yes. And whose fault is > that?
And if you want to interoperate with the rest of the world, where at least count over 92% of computers are running Windows, then using another OS is stupid, right? Right? I mean, if everyone else is doing it, we should too, shouldn't we?
Show 10 quoted lines
> The whole point of interoperability is that when we communicate, we > have to do so in a uniform and predictable way. If we can't, the next > best thing is to have protocol translators; but in order to do that, > we must avoid lossy transformations, such as HFS+'s > pseudo-normalization. (Why, by the way, will not result in a "normal" > form for any glyph which can be encoded with and without a combining > character if said glyph was introduced into Unicode after 1988. So > you can't even call it a "normalization" algorithm, but just a > pseudo-normalization transformation which is lossy and which DESTROYS > filename information in an irrecoverable way.)
Sure it's normalization, it's just not using one of the standard forms. But the form is well-defined.
And yes, protocol translators are a good idea. That's why I thought the original suggestion of using a table to map index filenames <-> HFS + filenames sounded like it could work. The only time that should fail is if the index contains multiple filenames that HFS+ will treat as a single filename. Is there a problem with this approach?
-Kevin Ballard
-- Kevin Ballard http://kevin.sb.org kevin@sb.org http://www.tildesoft.com