On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Kevin Ballard wrote: > > I think it's fine having git treat filenames "as unicode", as long as you > > don't do any munging on it. > > When I say "treat filenames as unicode" I'm implying the equivalence > comparisons and everything else that we've been talking about. Yes, because you're an idiot. I've told you over and over again that equivalence is stupid. It's stupid when it's "equivalent except for case", and it's stupid when it's "canonically equivalent". > No, you've argued against unicode equivalency in filenames. Can't you figure > out, when the entire time I've been talking about equivalency, that I'm > *still* talking about equivalency? I agree: normalization and equivalency is idiotic. But the two actually go hand in hand: > > All my complaints - every single one of them - comes down to making the > > idiotic choice of trying to munge those strings (not even strictly > > "normalize") into something they are not. > > Yes, I understand quite well that you are against munging strings. You don't seem to. The thing is, the two are inexorably intertwined. Any filename equivalence (except for the trivial "identity" equivalence) INVARIABLY means that filenames get munged. Why? Think about the file name "Abc", and think about what happens when you create it. Now, think about what happens if that filename is considered equivalent in case.. See? The filesystem has to *corrupt* the filename. Can you not UNDERSTAND this? Equivalence and normalization is STUPID. It's just two sides of the exact same coin. They both INVARIABLY cause the filename to be munged. And changing user data is not acceptable. Do you get it now? Linus "probably not" Torvalds - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
