On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:10:20 +0200 "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24/08/07, hinko.kocevar@xxxxxxxxxxxx <hinko.kocevar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [snip] > > > > Why would one copy-paste the patch once the diff is in the file? > > Becourse patches should be send inline and some people apparently > don't know how to insert files properly inline into email. > And using copy-paste for that matter might introduce even more problems (as mentioned before) and patch rejections - depending on the patch addressee. To fix this issue user should at least know its enemy (the MUA that is) and try send the patch to itself before sending patches out. > > Is the > > mailers attach function appropriate for including the files in the message? > > No. Attachments make it hard to comment on a patch when replying, it's > also more work to have to save the attachment before you can view it > (when your mailer doesn't let you view attachments directly). > Generally, attachments for patches are not welcome - they can be used > as a last resort in special cases, but should generally be avoided. > > For more, please see > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/lkml/#s1-10 > http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt > I was thinking about the 'inline' attachments all the time. Those are handled properly even Thunderbird. When displayed in the MUA their content is in fact shown right away, as long as they are ' text/plain'. I can understand now that it is preferred to inline the patch so that one could quickly view and reply with comments to the patch, opposed to the patch being attached as a 'file'. Regards, Hinko -- ČETRTA POT, d.o.o., Kranj Planina 3 4000 Kranj Slovenia, Europe Tel. +386 (0) 4 280 66 03 E-mail: hinko.kocevar@xxxxxxxxxxxx Http: www.cetrtapot.si -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
