From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB48D2E410 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:45:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710434754; cv=none; b=qAopwB273IHSM5FFCIokmPSaHwGTp22rXcVkXgoA+sc9QAo5RIt3z2PPS7BA3cRb+kkaN0gNNGhPYsqqzvDby95jDvePzfU+668gC2SPpXWKZEVjJcmbvBPQpyTuLDhnuVhnLNPqdwZ0pddYyo3I70nwT4ji6SHd5m7wVpksHzE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710434754; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gZ3brBv7voZkmv6+NQZLQxPvN4H41TWuxqm6Y0ZtGDw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iRAqx155VJh0LLEGjVKWZVEiUGNj/Nex3LmaJYWGKHxmBWGyOIRvnz0skoz+yBYYRWawhMvFe8mgm3Itn7VVSSqLPVCgkpDRZAOYdZikoWwO88Iua3VOokboEBE8+/99ndZvBSP/N3JLMtD0QnHkJ1RwAZW4coDbckpEEijpVa4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=OKNPP+Tr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="OKNPP+Tr" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282C22974A; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:45:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=gZ3brBv7voZkmv6+NQZLQxPvN4H41TWuxqm6Y0 ZtGDw=; b=OKNPP+TrDxHQ5Dp9K73cAH2kIdOpfryXJrIlMAdo0oB0jIxOskGuCc TZWT4ezaO3IUNn8G+IxGbTvAH4p0HYNc5Y9dUdHtz9fKQr0NVKgyPfeOE4WXzeMt 5l+M5V4dyek1P6xLFLcETLDSBVhfUOuNoHZU2RZEwANZDhBEUoib0= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214FC29749; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:45:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.185.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9DDE29748; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:45:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Dragan Simic Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, rsbecker@nexbridge.com, github@seichter.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] config.txt: describe whitespace characters further and more accurately In-Reply-To: (Dragan Simic's message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:20:00 +0100") References: <1c670101fc29a9ccc71cf4d213545a564e14aa05.1710258538.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:45:47 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4FA0AC82-E222-11EE-947E-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Dragan Simic writes: > Though, further investigation shows that setting a configuration value, > by invoking git-config(1), converts value-internal tabs into "\t" escape > sequences, which the value-parsing logic doesn't "squash" into spaces. Correct. It would have been nicer to just quote values that had whitespaces in them, but replacing HT to SP while turning HT that comes from our tool into "\t" would still let the value round-trip, while breaking anything written manually in editors. If you stay within Git without using any editor, what ebdaae37 (config: Keep inner whitespace verbatim, 2009-07-30) left us is at least internally consistent. > I'd be happy to include the bugfix into this series, if my > above-mentioned > fears prove to be unnecessary. Documenting status quo is a good place to stop for now. I do not know if it is a good idea to add too many tests to etch the current behaviour that we know is wrong and we'll need to update when we fix the bug, though. Thanks.