From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] t8005: use more portable character encoding names Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:22:46 -0700 Message-ID: <7vhbzd85ux.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Brandon Casey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 22 18:23:17 2009 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 1M7XWe-00043U-JS for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 22 May 2009 18:23:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756145AbZEVQWr (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2009 12:22:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754323AbZEVQWr (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2009 12:22:47 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.241.40]:46371 "EHLO fed1rmmtao106.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751535AbZEVQWq (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2009 12:22:46 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090522162247.DTRE25927.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net>; Fri, 22 May 2009 12:22:47 -0400 Received: from localhost ([68.225.240.211]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id ugNm1b00m4aMwMQ04gNnL2; Fri, 22 May 2009 12:22:47 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=A45FNvI-izYA:10 a=Tuf-O-QHtNkA:10 a=yVAoY06rBgFK-_Q3j44A:9 a=p0DPRM_GKTx1FK6mSMwyC1xSUGEA:4 X-CM-Score: 0.00 In-Reply-To: (Brandon Casey's message of "Fri\, 22 May 2009 10\:25\:04 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Brandon Casey writes: > ... I hesitate to send it since it does not actually allow any > tests to pass which were previously failing for me. At least the utf-8 to > UTF-8 shouldn't cause any harm. The shift-jis to SJIS seems to be commonly > supported? at least IRIX 6.5 and Solaris as old as 7 recognize it, but the > evidence is only empirical. Modern Solaris, and of course Linux recognize > either. Perhaps the test can be changed from using cp1251 (whatever that is) to something more common (e.g. 8859-1)? There was another more large-ish patch to the tests around this area recently from you. I liked them but somehow failed to queue any of them yet, sorry.