On 1/18/07, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Also, how many mail clients know that .patch is actually > a text and not application/binary? It'll make patch > reviewing harder for some (not sure if I'd like a review > of such a person, though). Patches intended for review should be sent inline, not attached.
There is again this word "should". Are you sure it has any _real_ meaning? For a person who knows about revision management from something like Perforce?
Thus the file extension has no impact on how the mail client should treat it.
He will attach it. It's typical for outlook users. He will even put it in HTML-formatted mail, because that's the default format for outlook messages.
Don't count people out just because they cannot read a *.patch file
I don't. I just know how hard is it to explain what source is and why it is better than a "C++ file".
All constructive feedback is valuable, no matter its source. Of course I did qualify that with "constructive"... ;-)
It is. That's why I did try to explain it to some. That's how I know about explaining. I'm very pessimistic now, sorry. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html