On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 09:34:22PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 03:13:37PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > > I used diffoscope to compare the non-working patch and a "should-be" > > identical patch that I generated locally. The only differences were in > > the patch headers and the encoding of the file (UTF-8 vs ISO-8859-1). > > I think that explains it: The non-working part of the patch was the copyright > line, which contains the copyright symbol! > > So let us all move to utf-8!
If that is it, then I believe git should "do the right thing" when generating patches. I've noticed that it progressively sets the encoding based on the minimum required to encode the characters in the patch. For example, if all characters can be encoded in ASCII, it uses ASCII, otherwise I think it uses UTF-8.
