Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:55:02PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Of the three solutions, I think the relative merits are something like >> > this: >> > ... >> > 3. w-t-e (Lars's patch) >> >> I thought Lars's w-t-e was about keeping the in-repo contents in >> UTF-8 and externalize in whatever encoding (e.g. UTF-16), so it >> won't help the issue hosting folks want to deal with, i.e. showing >> in-repo data that is stored in a strange binary-looking encoding in >> a more reasonable encodign while diffing, no? > > I thought it solved that by the hosting folks never seeing the strange > binary-looking data. They see only utf8, which diffs well. Ah, OK, that is a "fix" in a wider context (in a narrower context, "work around" is a more appropriate term ;-). The reason why I have been nudging people toward considering in-repo encoding attribute is because forcing projects that already have their contents in a strange binary-looking encoding to switch is costly. But perhaps having them pay one-time conversion pain is a better investment longer term.
