On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 03:37:16PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > After thinking about it I wonder if we should barf on "utf16" without > > dash. Your Linux iconv would handle this correctly. My macOS iconv would not. > > That means the repo would checkout correctly on your machine but not on mine. > > > > What do you think? > > To be bluntly honest, I prefer not to have excess "sanity checks"; > there is no need to barf on utf16 in a project run by those who are > without macOS friends, for example. For that matter, while I do not > hate it so much to reject it, I am not all that supportive of this > "The consortium says without -LE or -BE suffix there must be BOM, > and this lacks one, so barf loudly" step in this topic myself. Loosing or adding a BOM couild render a file useless, depending on the SW that reads and processes it. The main reason for being critacal is to make sure that the material in the working-tree does a safe roundtrip when commited, pushed, pulled, checked out... The best thing we can do is probably to follow the specification as good as possible. Having a clear specification (UTF-16LE/BE has no BOM, UTF-16 has none, UTF-16 has a BOM) would even open the chance to work around a buggy iconv library, because Git can check the BOM. If, and only if, a platform messes it up, and we want to make a (compile time) workaround in Git for this very platform. A consistant behavior across all platforms is a good thing, sometimes I have a network share mounted to Linux, MacOS and Windows and it doesn't matter under which Git on which machine I checkout or commit. Oh, I see, there is a new patch coming...
