From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carl Worth Subject: Re: FEATURE REQUEST: git-format-path: Add option to encode patch content Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:00:44 -0700 Message-ID: <873b2ho73n.wl%cworth@cworth.org> References: <7vslalmwcx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87y7kdo6pn.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7vps5pl3jl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Apr_30_15:00:44_2007-1"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jari Aalto , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 01 00:01:07 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hidve-0007d9-Bg for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 00:01:06 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422769AbXD3WAw (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:00:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423363AbXD3WAw (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:00:52 -0400 Received: from theworths.org ([217.160.253.102]:50948 "EHLO theworths.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422769AbXD3WAv (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:00:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 9487 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2007 18:00:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (HELO raht.cworth.org) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Apr 2007 18:00:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7vps5pl3jl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.4 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Apr_30_15:00:44_2007-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:56:46 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > You strayed into tangent here. You said you do not have a > problem with non base64 attachments. Yes, sorry for that. > I would like to know if > you have or do not have problem with base64 ones, as that is > what indicates your opinion on making --attach unconditionally > do base64 which was the suggestion made in the thread. I definitely have a problem with base64-encoded patches. My MUA does much of exactly what I want with text attachments, (and stuff I thought most any MUA would do). Specifically, it always displays text attachments immediately following the message body itself. And it also quotes text attachments when I reply. So, for me, a text attachment is almost identical in usability to an inline patch. And in some ways, it's even more usable. Since my MUA knows about the boundaries of each attachment, then if there are multiple patches, I can operate on any one individually (saving or organizing, or whatever), or even "reply to" an individual attachment by quoting only that one. And my MUA does all that even if the text attachment comes with an "attachment" disposition instead of an "inline" disposition. And I can't imagine why any MUA would not immediately display a text attachment, (unless as Linus suggests, it's to encourage user's to get better exercise by clicking more). *And* I think my MUA even does all that even if the attachment comes base64-encoded. But in spite of that, I still am not happy to ever receive a base64-encoded patch. Because I use things other than my MUA to look at my mail, (for example, I use grep and sometimes other indexing tools over my mail, and the base64 encoding ruins them). So, that's where my preference comes for not wanting base64 encoding, (even when patches come attached but not inline). -Carl --pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Apr_30_15:00:44_2007-1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGNmcM6JDdNq8qSWgRArj+AJ4wlJZeHr3wc27C1dduBP6b/m2pugCdFjN8 qN7G8AcHxqPgnNM8ai/T6qY= =LoMp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Apr_30_15:00:44_2007-1--