On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 07:32:05AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 01:49:58PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:33:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Friday 22 May 2015 12:00:03 Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > > > Remember, if I have to hand-edit, or do something special with your > > > > > patch, I will not do it, you need to do it correctly to make > > > > > maintainer's lives easier, not harder, given that maintainers are the > > > > > limited resouce, not developers. > > > > > > > > I understand. I'll make a mental note to never send you patches as > > > > attachment again. > > > > > > > > > > Better make that a general rule. My workflow is different from Greg's > > > but also doesn't cope well with attachments. A lot of people in turn > > > have problems quoting from an attachment when replying to the patch, > > > which happens to work for me. > > > > Okay. Any hints on how to simplify sending out such patches with the > > same list of recipients? I find it very annoying to have to manually > > copy each recipient into the git send-email command-line, but I don't > > know of a better way to do it. Replying to an email from the MUA will > > at least do that automatically. > > Reply from the MUA and then just put the patch in the email body. If > you have a good MUA it should be trivial to do[1] > > thanks, > > greg k-h > > 1) mutt drops you to your editor, and then you can just read in the > patch file directly to that buffer. Indeed, that should work. As I understand it, I wouldn't even have to further edit the email (except strip the reply) because git am prefers headers in the patch to headers in the message (it certainly does that for From:, so I suspect it would do it for Date: and Subject: as well). Or if that doesn't work, Arnd's suggestion to use a scissors line is a good alternative as well. Thanks guys for the suggestions, Thierry
Attachment:
pgpOhIq0ucSQO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
