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: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:58:47 -0700 Message-ID: <87tzv1nzd4.wl%cworth@cworth.org> References: <7vslalmwcx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87y7kdo6pn.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87wszxo2b5.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Apr_27_16:58:41_2007-1"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jari Aalto , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 28 01:59:28 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 1HhaLV-0008E3-7n for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:59:25 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757933AbXD0X6x (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:58:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757932AbXD0X6w (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:58:52 -0400 Received: from theworths.org ([217.160.253.102]:47099 "EHLO theworths.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757930AbXD0X6t (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:58:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 9689 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2007 19:58:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (HELO raht.cworth.org) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Apr 2007 19:58:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: 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_Fri_Apr_27_16:58:41_2007-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:41:12 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote: > And the reason I _hate_ attachements is that you cannot say "no, that one > is wrong", and just skip/edit it. Well, skipping it while applying the rest is bad form anyway, isn't it? I think "bounce the whole series on any problem" reduces load on the maintainer and helps the submitter learn by fixing up the patch series personally rather than trusting the maintainer to do it. > And when patch 5 is crap, you're basically screwed. There is almost no > support for replying to that _individually_ and saying "That one sucks". > You press "reply", and you get all ten. As soon as there's anything broken in the series, the patch boundaries aren't that interesting to me anymore. At that point, I just reply to the whole thing and strip the reply down to the stuff worth commenting on. So, my style is accept or bounce, and during the bounce, I'll just review the whole thing while quoted in my reply buffer. That seems to work for me anyway, without a one-patch-per email approach, (in fact, one-patch-per-email would be a lot more awkward for replying to the whole series and quoting similar or related issues as I like to do). -Carl --pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Apr_27_16:58:41_2007-1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGMo436JDdNq8qSWgRAtU2AJwP4+SKgqxz+TC5R6D6TugsA6VODQCgk1hc yIxArQlpWnYgOuDNkdyGHsE= =eegK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Apr_27_16:58:41_2007-1--