# git-mailinfo munges the patch? 6 messages from 2007-03-29 to 2007-03-29. Participants: Junio C Hamano, Don Zickus, Linus Torvalds. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/7476 ## Junio C Hamano, 2007-03-29 20:18 Subject: git-mailinfo munges the patch? Message-ID: <7v1wj74xck.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v1wj74xck.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ``` I noticed that the new mailinfo when splitting a message into cover letter and the patch text seems to munge the patch text, applying the same "if content-type is not there then assume latin-1 and recode to utf-8" logic that is applied to the commit log message. That munging should not be done to the patch text, and it appears the current code botches it. I am a bit too busy with day job today and haven't had a chance to look into this problem fully, but 1.5.0.3 does not seem to have this problem but post 87ab7992 mailinfo is problematic. ``` ## Don Zickus, 2007-03-29 20:53 Subject: Re: git-mailinfo munges the patch? Message-ID: <20070329205357.GF11029@redhat.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070329205357.GF11029%40redhat.com In-Reply-To: <7v1wj74xck.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I noticed that the new mailinfo when splitting a message into > cover letter and the patch text seems to munge the patch text, > applying the same "if content-type is not there then assume > latin-1 and recode to utf-8" logic that is applied to the commit > log message. That munging should not be done to the patch text, > and it appears the current code botches it. Ok. I see what you are saying with the old code. Sorry about that. Do you have a sample file that I can play with to test my fix? Cheers, Don ``` ## Linus Torvalds, 2007-03-29 21:19 Subject: Re: git-mailinfo munges the patch? Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.64.0703291417250.6730%40woody.linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <20070329205357.GF11029@redhat.com> ``` On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Don Zickus wrote: > > Ok. I see what you are saying with the old code. Sorry about that. Do > you have a sample file that I can play with to test my fix? On that note - here's an unrelated simple case that the old mailinfo got right, but the new one seems to screw up: multiple Subject: lines. The old one would make later Subject: lines override the earlier ones, and I depended on that when I fix up peoples emails to me manually (you wouldn't believe how bad explanations or subject lines people use for perfectly good patches ;) The current mailinfo seems to just take the first one. Linus ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2007-03-29 21:24 Subject: Re: git-mailinfo munges the patch? Message-ID: <7vejn73fqg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vejn73fqg.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <20070329205357.GF11029@redhat.com> ``` Don Zickus writes: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I noticed that the new mailinfo when splitting a message into >> cover letter and the patch text seems to munge the patch text, >> applying the same "if content-type is not there then assume >> latin-1 and recode to utf-8" logic that is applied to the commit >> log message. That munging should not be done to the patch text, >> and it appears the current code botches it. > > Ok. I see what you are saying with the old code. Sorry about that. Do > you have a sample file that I can play with to test my fix? Attached are two files. The first one is to be split with git-mailsplit and then processed with git-mailinfo; I just tried to make sure what I expect to see as the output is given by 1.5.0 but not with the current 'master'. The second one is a bundle of the repository the test data comes from. You could use it like this: $ mkdir foo && cd foo && git init $ git pull ../sample.bdl master The repository has one branch, 'master', with two commits on it. The first one creates an empty file 'a', and the second one adds a line to the file, which has a Spanish "tilde on top of N" in it, and the contents of the file is encoded in ISO 8859-1. The commit message of the second one is plain ascii but it could be in UTF-8. The point is that patch can have payload from different files that are possibly in different encodings, so shoud really be treated as binary data without mangling. Thanks. ``` ## Don Zickus, 2007-03-29 21:52 Subject: Re: git-mailinfo munges the patch? Message-ID: <20070329215248.GG11029@redhat.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070329215248.GG11029%40redhat.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:19:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Don Zickus wrote: > > > > Ok. I see what you are saying with the old code. Sorry about that. Do > > you have a sample file that I can play with to test my fix? > > On that note - here's an unrelated simple case that the old mailinfo got > right, but the new one seems to screw up: multiple Subject: lines. > > The old one would make later Subject: lines override the earlier ones, and > I depended on that when I fix up peoples emails to me manually (you > wouldn't believe how bad explanations or subject lines people use for > perfectly good patches ;) I see what happened. The old code allowed rewriting of the mail headers but blocked rewriting of the inbody headers. For some reason I thought it was by accident that the mail headers were allow to be rewritten. Oops. :( I wrote the code to have both header types block rewriting. I'll change that. Cheers, Don ``` ## Don Zickus, 2007-03-29 21:53 Subject: Re: git-mailinfo munges the patch? Message-ID: <20070329215325.GH11029@redhat.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070329215325.GH11029%40redhat.com In-Reply-To: <7vejn73fqg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:24:39PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Don Zickus writes: > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I noticed that the new mailinfo when splitting a message into > >> cover letter and the patch text seems to munge the patch text, > >> applying the same "if content-type is not there then assume > >> latin-1 and recode to utf-8" logic that is applied to the commit > >> log message. That munging should not be done to the patch text, > >> and it appears the current code botches it. > > > > Ok. I see what you are saying with the old code. Sorry about that. Do > > you have a sample file that I can play with to test my fix? > > Attached are two files. Thanks. I'll play with them later tonight. Cheers, Don ```