Am 12.12.2017 um 01:59 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Stepping back a bit, what does this thing do you are introducing? And what does the other thing do that J6t is using, that would get confused with this new one? What does the other one do? "Declare that the contents of this path is in this encoding"? As opposed to the new one, which tells Git to "run iconv from and to this encoding when checking out and checking in"? If so, any phrase that depends heavily on the word "encode" would not help differenciating the two uses. The phrase needs to be something that contrasts the new one, which actively modifies things (what is on the filesystem is not what is stored in the object store), with the old one, which does not (passed as a declaration to a viewer what encoding the contents already use and does not change anything).
Well explained!
... perhaps "smudge-encoding" would work (we declare that the result of smudge operations are left in this encoding, so the opposite operation "clean" will do the reverse---and we say this without explicitly saying that the other end of the conversion is always UTF-8)? Or "checkout-encoding" (the same explanation; we do not say the opposite operation "checkin/add" will do the reverse).
I would favor "checkout-encoding" over "smudge-encoding" only because "checkout" is better known than "smudge", I would think. I do not have better suggestions.
-- Hannes
