Skip to content

Conversation

@rdmark
Copy link
Member

@rdmark rdmark commented Jan 2, 2026

Bump the supported Unicode character set from v16.0.0 to v17.0.0

@rdmark rdmark force-pushed the rdmark-unicode-17 branch from ec10abf to 5930ae8 Compare January 2, 2026 18:16
Bump the supported Unicode character set from v16.0.0 to v17.0.0
@rdmark rdmark force-pushed the rdmark-unicode-17 branch from 5930ae8 to 1bd6ed3 Compare January 2, 2026 18:16
@rdmark rdmark changed the title libatalk: regenerate utf16 lookup tables with Unicode v17.0.0 libatalk: regenerate utf16 case lookup tables with Unicode v17.0.0 Jan 2, 2026
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jan 2, 2026

Copy link
Contributor

@andylemin andylemin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The issues we had last time with Unicode were related to changing the build mechanism, so this should be ok.
But there is still a risk of new user issues.
However I don't believe any new Unicode issues would be conflated with new dircache issues, so I'm not against adding this in the same release

@rdmark
Copy link
Member Author

rdmark commented Jan 3, 2026

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! After sleeping on it I suggest we postpone this after all, no need to introduce risk for a very marginal benefit. I expect it will take a good long while for most OSes to introduce support for the new glyphs in Unicode 17, so we have time to get this code into production.

@rdmark rdmark marked this pull request as draft January 3, 2026 14:42
@rdmark rdmark marked this pull request as ready for review January 9, 2026 14:18
@rdmark rdmark requested a review from andylemin January 9, 2026 14:19
@rdmark
Copy link
Member Author

rdmark commented Jan 10, 2026

@andylemin just checking that you're ok with merging this to main now?

please approve when ready :)

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.

3 participants