> On 12 Dec 2017, at 08:15, Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Thanks for your thoughts! "checkout-encoding" would work for me. However, it might convey that Git "does change the files of the user in some way" (which is true from Git's perspective but not from the user perspective). Patrick and I brainstormed a few more possible alternatives: apply-encoding blob-encoding checkout-encoding diff-encoding encoding-hint external-encoding handle-as internal-encoding keep-encoding present-as preserve-encoding source-encoding text-conversion text-encoding treat-as treat-encoding-as Our favorite is "treat-encoding-as". Do you consider this better or worse than "checkout-encoding"? Thanks, Lars PS: Naming things is hard ;-)
