From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] send-email: rfc2047-quote subject lines with non-ascii characters Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:47:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20080521194734.GA17321@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20080328212700.GA9529@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20080328212900.GB9656@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vve171m67.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 21 21:48:48 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JyuIX-0002Ib-FT for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 21 May 2008 21:48:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937100AbYEUTri (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 15:47:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S937081AbYEUTrh (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 15:47:37 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:4192 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937066AbYEUTrg (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 15:47:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 23933 invoked by uid 111); 21 May 2008 19:47:35 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 May 2008 15:47:35 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 21 May 2008 15:47:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vve171m67.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:39:44PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Last night I was going through old mail-logs and found this and another > one that this is a follow-up to, which I think are still needed. Does > anybody see anything wrong with them? > > Jeff King writes: > > > We always use 'utf-8' as the encoding, since we currently > > have no way of getting the information from the user. Ah, thanks for bringing this up. I noticed a few weeks ago that it hadn't been applied and meant to bring it up, but somehow I failed to do so. Obviously I'm in support of this one, but I also think Horst's patch looks correct. -Peff