From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pete Wyckoff Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-p4: import utf16 file properly Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:19:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20110918011942.GA13702@arf.padd.com> References: <4E705DF8.1040508@diamand.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Luke Diamand , git@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Li X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 18 03:20:36 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R563f-00049H-Qc for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 03:20:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753136Ab1IRBTq (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:19:46 -0400 Received: from honk.padd.com ([74.3.171.149]:49735 "EHLO honk.padd.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752067Ab1IRBTp (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:19:45 -0400 Received: from arf.padd.com (unknown [50.55.131.180]) by honk.padd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1248CBFC; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by arf.padd.com (Postfix, from userid 7770) id 53BEE31448; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: git@chrisli.org wrote on Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:39 -0700: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Chris Li wrote: > >> Does this change do the right thing with RCS keywords in UTF16 files? > > > > I don't know what is the rules about the RCS keyword in UTF16 files. > > I did a little bit research and found this: > > http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4guide/ab_filetypes.html > > RCS keyword expand should only happen for "+k" or "+ko" modifiers. > There for, "utf16" files without modifier should not be converted. > In that regard, the patch is correct. But both the original and patched version > did not handle "utf16+k" type of files. I still consider it as a separate issue. Your patch looks good and this all makes sense. I redid it, adding a test case, and some more patches to clean up some of the filetype detection code. I'll send it out for review soon here. Luke: thanks for the comments; they prompted me to think about keywords and beyond. -- Pete