On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 08:38:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I think this patch would be a better match for what RFC2047 specifies. > > On the one hand it avoids substituting _ outside of encodings, but OTOH > > it also handles more than one encoded-word. > > Yeah, I think it is an improvement. > > I however wonder if the captured pattern for $2 should be minimized > with ? at the end, i.e. "..\?q\?(.*?)\?="? Yeah, definitely. "?=" cannot appear inside (it would need to be quoted). > > It still does not handle > > the case where there are several encoded-words of *different* encodings, > > but who would do such a crazy thing? > > Even if somebody did so, it wouldn't have worked, and to make it > work, the sub and its caller (there is only one caller that actually > cares what the original encoding was) needs to be rethought anyway, > so I do not think it matters. > > It may deserve an in-code NEEDSWORK comment, though. I rambled about this in much more detail in another reply, but the gist of it is that yes, that is the right step for now. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html