Skip to content

Assume strings are utf8 by default and fallback on encoding if necessary #318

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

kamaradclimber
Copy link

Before this patch, we always assumed the string was ascii-8bit which
does not work correctly with real utf8 strings (french accented chars or
chineese chars).

This patch tries to use the string as utf8 and fallback if necessary to
the the ascii-8bit assumption if necessary.

This should help with #295 and might replace the need for #301.

Change-Id: Idac63fa10e5aefafa1eb99a6be4138cac5f90ea0

Before this patch, we always assumed the string was ascii-8bit which
does not work correctly with real utf8 strings (french accented chars or
chineese chars).

This patch tries to use the string as utf8 and fallback if necessary to
the the ascii-8bit assumption if necessary.

This should help with ruby-git#295 and might replace the need for ruby-git#301.

Change-Id: Idac63fa10e5aefafa1eb99a6be4138cac5f90ea0
@kamaradclimber
Copy link
Author

kamaradclimber commented Dec 7, 2016

Sorry for the removal of ruby 1.9.2 without prior discussion. At the moment tests cannot pass (even in master) for ruby 1.9.2 (see my comment on my second commit).

I'd be glad to discuss it.

ruby 1.9.2 has been out of support for 2,5 years
(https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2014/07/01/eol-for-1-8-7-and-1-9-2/)

The motivation behind this removal is the fact that all dependencies of
this gem (at least rake and rdoc) do not support ruby 1.9.2 in their
latest versions. Keeping support would require to constraint their
version to very old version (on ruby 1.9.2 only).

Actually even 1.9.3 has been out of support for 1,5 years but it does
not cause test problem yet.

Change-Id: Iad7c3da74a19ebc37c3df4203f7e55a0b5aa70dc
@kamaradclimber
Copy link
Author

@rvodden would you consider this PR if I fixed the conflicts?

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Apr 12, 2018

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the wontfix label Apr 12, 2018
@kamaradclimber
Copy link
Author

@perlun I am willing to fix the conflicts if you are interested in the PR. let me know

@stale stale bot removed the wontfix label Apr 12, 2018
@perlun
Copy link
Contributor

perlun commented May 3, 2018

@kamaradclimber I think #327 supersedes this. Could you try with the latest master and see if this assumption is right? If not, we can discuss it further - I'm open to changes that fixes bugs in the implementation.

@kamaradclimber
Copy link
Author

thanks for the answer. I'll close the PR and test latest master

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants