Adam Piatyszek schrieb: > * Johannes Sixt [18 I 2008 09:12]: >> Is it good to die() in this situation? If you are sending a patch series >> and one patch in the middle triggers this condition, then only half of >> the >> series is sent. Maybe it would be better to warn here only, collect file >> names of the suspects, send the patch nevertheless, and write a >> summary at >> the end? > IMHO it does not make much sense to send such patches nevertheless, if > we are sure that they will be broken after SMTP transfer. Such a > situation is similar to spamming. And sending only the ones that can be > sent is not an option as well. You are right here. My thought was that even though the recipient gets a broken patch, he would be able to fix it up. This may be acceptable for peer-to-peer communication, but not for a development style that involves many recipients. Then git-format-patch and log-family with --pretty=email -p could warn about these candidates-to-be-broken patches. -- Hannes - 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
