Carl Worth <cworth@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:56:46 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> ... >> 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. Thanks, and I agree with everything you said why base64 is inconvenient. So _if_ somebody does an enhancement to do base64, it needs to be a separate option. Honestly speaking, though, I think that kind of "attachment" should be left to MUA, not format-patch. If somebody knows his MUA has a tendency to corrupt in-line text, tell the MUA to attach the format-patch output stored in the filesystem as an application/octet-stream attachment. MUA may or may not do base64 or QP but at that point the only thing the user cares about is a byte-for-byte faithful reproduction at the recipient's end, and he does not worry a whit about readability), so either base64 or QP would suffice. And the format-patch does not have to care. - 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