Re: [PATCH 1/4] version: refactor strbuf_sanitize()

>
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/strbuf.c b/strbuf.c
> > index 3d2189a7f6..cccfdec0e3 100644
> > --- a/strbuf.c
> > +++ b/strbuf.c
> > @@ -1082,3 +1082,12 @@ void strbuf_strip_file_from_path(struct strbuf *sb)
> >       char *path_sep = find_last_dir_sep(sb->buf);
> >       strbuf_setlen(sb, path_sep ? path_sep - sb->buf + 1 : 0);
> >  }
> > +
> > +void strbuf_sanitize(struct strbuf *sb)
> > +{
> > +     strbuf_trim(sb);
> > +     for (size_t i = 0; i < sb->len; i++) {
> > +             if (sb->buf[i] <= 32 || sb->buf[i] >= 127)
> > +                     sb->buf[i] = '.';
> > +     }
> > +}
>
> This looked a bit _too_ specific for the use of the transport layer
> (which raises the question if it should even live in strbuf.[ch]).
> It also made me wonder if different callers likely want to have
> different variants (e.g., do not trim, only trim at the tail, squash
> a run of unprintables into a single '.', use '?'  instead of '.',
> etc., etc.).
>
> It turns out that there is only *one* existing caller that gets
> replaced with this "common" version, which made it a Meh to me.
>
> Let's hope that there will be many new callers to make this step
> worthwhile.