From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 19:37:31 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: teach --no-encode-headers
Message-ID: <xmqq8sj7t7d0.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200407034622.GA42812@pluvano.com>

Emma Brooks <me@pluvano.com> writes:

> It's also too vague and it's not entirely clear from the option itself
> what sort of encoding it refers to. I will change it to
> --[no-]q-encode-headers and format.qEncodeHeaders in v2 unless there are
> other suggestions.

I actually did not mean to push you into that direction.  We can,
and do want to, keep the most generic "--[no-]encode-headers" if we
do not anticipate us wanting to special case the Q encoding.  A
sample question to ask is "would it make sense to disable q-encoding
but still perform other parts of 'encode headers'?"  I haven't
thought deeply about such questions, but as a proposer of this
topic, you would certainly have, and I was hoping that you'd say
things like "Q-encoding is the only thing that we do to munge
headers, so there aren't any 'other parts of encoding headers' we
need to worry about", "there are things like X, Y and Z that we do
to the headers when we enable Q-encoding, but they all are what we
do not want when we do not want the Q-encoding", which would be a
very good sign that assures us that "--[no-]encode-headers" is a
good name.

Thanks.