Re: [RFC][PATCH] update SubmittingPatches to clarify attachment policy

[Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 735 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 13:16 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 10:01:56 PDT, Dave Hansen said:
> 
> > -6) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments.  Just plain text.
> > +6) No MIME, no links, no compression.  Just plain text.
> 
> Logically buggy.  You can't have an attachment without the MIME markup that
> *says* it's an attachment.  I think what you meant was "No Content-Type-Encoding":
> i.e. 'none' is acceptable, but 'quoted-printable' (which causes all the
> spurious =20 and =3D you sometimes see) and 'base64' (uuencode on steroids)
> aren't....

Thanks for pointing out my flawed logic.  I wasn't quite sure what was
MIME and what wasn't.  How about the attached patch, instead?

-- Dave

[-- Attachment #2: submitting-patches-1.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2728 bytes --]


I think the general opinion of posting patches as attachments
has changed over the last few years.  Mailers have been getting
a lot better at handling them, even quoting non-message-body
plain/text attachments in replies.  

Plus, a plain/text attachment message saved to a file can go
into 'patch' the same way that an inline one can.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>
---

 memhotplug-dave/Documentation/SubmittingPatches |   20 ++++++++++++++------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff -L Documentation/Submitting -puN /dev/null /dev/null
diff -puN Documentation/SubmittingPatches~submitting-patches Documentation/SubmittingPatches
--- memhotplug/Documentation/SubmittingPatches~submitting-patches	2005-05-04 08:07:25.000000000 -0700
+++ memhotplug-dave/Documentation/SubmittingPatches	2005-05-04 10:22:43.000000000 -0700
@@ -181,25 +181,33 @@ patches. Trivial patches must qualify fo
 
 
 
-6) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments.  Just plain text.
+6) No links, no compressed attachments.  Just plain text.
 
 Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment
 on the changes you are submitting.  It is important for a kernel
 developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail
 tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
 
-For this reason, all patches should be submitting e-mail "inline".
+For this reason, the preferred way of submitting patches in e-mail is
+"inline", in the same part of the message with everything else.
 WARNING:  Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
 if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
 
-Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
+Many maintainers will now accept patches submitted to them as
+text/plain attachments.  Many mailers quote these attachements in the
+same way that they do for inline patches.  But, some maintainers still
+prefer inlines and they are certainly the safest bet.  In any case,
+never attach more than one patch to a single e-mail.
+
 Many popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME
 attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your
-code.  A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process,
-decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted.
+code.  If you must use an attachment, verify that it has no
+Content-Type-Encoding.  A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more
+time to process, decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached
+change being accepted.
 
 Exception:  If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
-you to re-send them using MIME.
+you to re-send them compressed or using other MIME encodings.
 
 
 
_