Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 2 May 2019 13:50:56 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Change feature name from fname_encoding to casefold?
Message-ID: <20190502205056.GA5193@magnolia>
References: <20190413054317.7388-1-krisman@collabora.com>
 <20190413054317.7388-9-krisman@collabora.com>
 <20190502162527.GC25007@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190502162527.GC25007@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:25:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Given how we've simplified how we handle Unicode --- in particular,
> not doing any kind of normalization unless we are doing case-folding
> compares, I think it will be more user-friendly if we rename the
> feature from fname_encoding to casefold.

TBH /me hadn't done enough reviewing even to notice the feature was
named 'fname_encoding' (whatever that means -- encoded how?).
IMHO 'casefold' is more descriptive about what the feature provides
(folding case for directory name comparisons, right?)

--D

> 
> What do you think?  Any objections?
> 
> 					- Ted