On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:56:46 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > You strayed into tangent here. You said you do not have a > problem with non base64 attachments. Yes, sorry for that. > I would like to know if > you have or do not have problem with base64 ones, as that is > what indicates your opinion on making --attach unconditionally > do base64 which was the suggestion made in the thread. I definitely have a problem with base64-encoded patches. My MUA does much of exactly what I want with text attachments, (and stuff I thought most any MUA would do). Specifically, it always displays text attachments immediately following the message body itself. And it also quotes text attachments when I reply. So, for me, a text attachment is almost identical in usability to an inline patch. And in some ways, it's even more usable. Since my MUA knows about the boundaries of each attachment, then if there are multiple patches, I can operate on any one individually (saving or organizing, or whatever), or even "reply to" an individual attachment by quoting only that one. And my MUA does all that even if the text attachment comes with an "attachment" disposition instead of an "inline" disposition. And I can't imagine why any MUA would not immediately display a text attachment, (unless as Linus suggests, it's to encourage user's to get better exercise by clicking more). *And* I think my MUA even does all that even if the attachment comes base64-encoded. But in spite of that, I still am not happy to ever receive a base64-encoded patch. Because I use things other than my MUA to look at my mail, (for example, I use grep and sometimes other indexing tools over my mail, and the base64 encoding ruins them). So, that's where my preference comes for not wanting base64 encoding, (even when patches come attached but not inline). -Carl
Attachment:
pgpIddiB4kzW7.pgp
Description: PGP signature