From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: FEATURE REQUEST: git-format-path: Add option to encode patch content Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <7vslalmwcx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87y7kdo6pn.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87wszxo2b5.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87tzv1nzd4.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jari Aalto , git@vger.kernel.org To: Carl Worth X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 28 02:21:15 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 1HhagX-0006BV-So for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:21:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757959AbXD1AVF (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:21:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757956AbXD1AVE (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:21:04 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([65.172.181.25]:51174 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757960AbXD1AVB (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:21:01 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l3S0Kna0025534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:20:50 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l3S0KmJZ011407; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:20:48 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87tzv1nzd4.wl%cworth@cworth.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.002 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-osdl_revision__1.12__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.177 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 65.172.181.25 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Carl Worth 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? Why would it be? Maybe for small projects with strictly linear development, but I get a _lot_ of patch-series where the patches are independent of each other. Andrew's patch-series are one example, but so is a lot of the "trivial tree" patch-series too. Linus