Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> Misunderstanding :-). The logic went like this: the param is a char*, thus
> it will be (typically) be representing characters, which means it needs an
> associated charset, which we have previously stated would be UTF-8.
Uh. Okay. Then I wasn't misunderstanding, and my response (that the
param being `char *' has no bearing on this discussion) was
appropriate.
> I dismissed it because there has already been quite a bit of material
> (from Garrett, Jon, etc etc) stating how clients need to know the charset to
> be able to do anything with those log messages.
>
> --> They contain characters. You need to know their charset.
>
> I'm not sure how it is possible to really consider otherwise. To display
> those characters to the user, you need the charset. To edit them, to set
> them, to email them, to do whatever.
Again, CVS doesn't know the charset, and I never encountered a
complaint about that, over years of doing more CVS support than most.
I'm sure CVS has disappointed people by this occasionally, and I just
haven't heard about it, but I'm equally certain that re-encoding log
messages will disappoint other people in other circumstances,
sometimes.
There is no clear win here. If you are unable to see how it is even
*possible* to consider being charset neutral, all I can say is, your
inability to see it does not add any weight to your technical
arguments against it. (I guess the other thing I can say is, I wonder
how you were able to use CVS all those years. :-) )
The software we are replacing _is_ effectively charset neutral for log
messages, and prior to this, we had never listed that as one of the
"bugs" we were aiming to fix in Subversion.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jun 1 14:12:28 2002