On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* 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. :)
Nah, now that we know what it was, we should let it cook for a while.
