On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 19:20 +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 02:13:59PM -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Russell King wrote: > > >>BTW, there appears to be "errors" in the history committed thus far. > > >>I'm not sure where this came from though. Some of them could be > > >>UTF8 vs ASCII issues, ....> > > ... > > >>One thing which definitely needs to be considered is - what character > > >>encoding are the comments to be stored as? > > > > Linus Torvalds replied: > > > To git, it's just a byte stream, and you can have binary comments if you > > > want to. I personally would prefer to move towards UTF eventually, but I > > > really don't think it matters a whole lot as long as 99.9% of everything > > > we'd see there is still 7-bit ascii. > > > > I would _heartily_ recommend moving towards UTF-8 as the > > internal charset for all comments. Alternatives are possible > > (e.g., recording the charset in the header), but they're > > incredibly messy. Even if you don't normally work in UTF-8, > > it's pretty easy to set most editors up to read & write UTF-8. > > Having the data stored as a constant charset eliminates > > a raft of error-prone code. > > Except, I believe, MicroEMACS, which both Linus and myself use. As > far as I know, there aren't any patches to make it UTF-8 compliant. > > The alternative is, I suppose, iconv. However, iconv in _my_ glibc > seems buggy (segfaults) and my efforts for building glibc 2.3.2 for > ARM have failed. Effectively that means iconv is inaccessible to > me. >
OT, and probably not much help, but glibc-2.3.5 is out ... -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
