On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 09:10:26PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > What about "git rev-list --pretty=raw"? Is that also porcelain? > > Does it re-encode? I didn't check, but ideally it shouldn't (but I do not > care too much either way, to be honest). Yes, it uses the same pretty_print_commit routine as the "log". > > I would be curious to hear your take on our failure to respect > > --encoding for --pretty=format. Is it a bug to be fixed, or a historical > > behavior to be maintained? > > I think the fix you outlined was quite reasonable. One thing I just realized that makes it even more reasonable: we properly munge the encoding header when we _do_ re-encode. So whether we re-encode or not, you will always get the correct encoding for what is being output via "%e". Which means that a tool which handles the current "broken" behavior by re-encoding themselves will trivially handle the new version: the output will just always be in the --encoding specified instead of whatever the original encoding was. And if there are tools that are not looking at the output encoding (and blindly assuming --encoding works), then they are already broken by the current behavior, and we will be fixing them. So I think it is safe to "fix" it as I described. -Peff -- 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
