Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> That's normally what we do. The only cases we're covering here are when
> somebody has explicitly asked that the commit object be stored in
> another encoding. Presumably they'd also be using a matching
> i18n.logOutputEncoding in that case, in which case logmsg_reencode()
> would be a noop. I think the only reasons to do that are:
>
> 1. You're stuck on some legacy encoding for your terminal. But in that
> case, I think you'd still be better off storing utf-8 and
> translating on the fly, since whatever encoding you do store is
> baked into your objects for all time (so accept some slowness now,
> but eventually move to utf-8).
>
> 2. Your preferred language is bigger in utf-8 than in some specific
> encoding, and you'd rather save some bytes. I'm not sure how big a
> deal this is, given that commit messages don't tend to be that big
> in the first place (compared to trees and blobs). And the zlib
> deflation on the result might help remove some of the redundancy,
> too.
Perhaps add
3. You are dealing with a project originated on and migrated
from a foreign SCM, and older parts of the history is stored
in a non-utf-8, even though recent history is in utf-8
to the mix?
> The two-part user-format thing goes back to 7e77df39bf (pretty: two
> phase conversion for non utf-8 commits, 2013-04-19). It does seem like
> it would be cheaper to convert the format string into the output
> encoding (it would need to be an ascii superset, but that's already the
> case, since we expect to parse "author", etc out of the re-encoded
> commit object). But again, I have trouble caring too much about the
> performance of this case, as I consider it to be mostly legacy at this
> point. But I also don't write in (say) Japanese, so maybe I'm being too
> narrow-minded about whether people really want to avoid utf-8.
I suspect even the heavy Windows/Mac users in Japan have migrated
out of legacy (the suspicion comes from an anecdote that is offtopic
here).
