Greetings,
* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> Nice spot. I think you have at least found the issue, but I think it may
> not be the best fix. Given that when we decode the string we do it with
> errors=ignore, we might loose data. Does the attached patch fix it in your
> tests as well? Instead of encoding/recoding, it just sticks the old line
> back on the list (which also matches the comment).
Tested and yes, this patch fixes it, and I agree that it makes more
sense than the approach I was using.
Would be great to get it deployed soon. :)
Thanks!
Stephen
