lars.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> +static const char *default_encoding = "UTF-8";
> +
> ...
> +static const char *git_path_check_encoding(struct attr_check_item *check)
> +{
> + const char *value = check->value;
> +
> + if (ATTR_UNSET(value) || !strlen(value))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (ATTR_TRUE(value) || ATTR_FALSE(value)) {
> + error(_("working-tree-encoding attribute requires a value"));
> + return NULL;
> + }
Hmph, so we decide to be loud but otherwise ignore an undefined
configuration? Shouldn't we rather die instead to avoid touching
the user data in unexpected ways?
> +
> + /* Don't encode to the default encoding */
> + if (!strcasecmp(value, default_encoding))
> + return NULL;
Is this an optimization to avoid "recode one encoding to the same
encoding" no-op overhead? We already have the optimization in the
same spirit in may existing codepaths that has nothing to do with
w-t-e, and I think we should share the code. Two pieces of thought
comes to mind.
One is a lot smaller in scale: Is same_encoding() sufficient for
this callsite instead of strcasecmp()?
The other one is a lot bigger: Looking at all the existing callers
of same_encoding() that call reencode_string() when it returns false,
would it make sense to drop same_encoding() and move the optimization
to reencode_string() instead?
I suspect that the answer to the smaller one is "yes, and even if
not, it should be easy to enhance/extend same_encoding() to make it
do what we want it to, and such a change will benefit even existing
callers." The answer to the larger one is likely "the optimization
is not about skipping only reencode_string() call but other things
are subtly different among callers of same_encoding(), so such a
refactoring would not be all that useful."
The above still holds for the code after 10/10 touches this part.
