On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 08:48:02AM -0700, David Daney wrote: > Some people on this list are quite adamant that patches be in-line. > > I was trying to see how my mailer (Thunderbird) handled this. Obviously > (in hindsight) it screws things up. > > Sending as an attachment works well except some mailers (Not > Thunderbird) cannot quote attached patches with out jumping through hoops. > > I don't really want to change the mailer that I am using, so I am in a > bit of a bind WRT submitting patches here. > > FWIW other mailing lists (binutils, gcc) don't seem to have the same > trouble with attached patches. Maybe a different style of work there. The submission style we're asking people to follow here is exactly the same as on linux-kernel, netdev or other kernel-related lists. I just asked somebody; this is the answer I got: <snip> I have never had any luck getting mailers to send patches in a way that no one complained about. In the end, I used this http://www.speakeasy.org/~pj99/sgi/sendpatchset I found the best way is to have a directory with patches like 001_part1.patch, 002_part2.patch etc with matching explainations in 001_part1.mail 002_part2.mail . I have a script that generates the final mails and feeds them to sendpatchset <snip> The script may not be what you want but I guess I'll be something like it to deal with the huge patchsets I'm sometimes fiddling with - like the 452 patch monster right now ... Ralf
