From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:42:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:42:40 -0500 Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.80]:52686 "EHLO mailout01.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:41:11 -0500 To: "Martin Eriksson" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why not "attach" patches? In-Reply-To: <005901c19dec$59a89e30$0201a8c0@HOMER> From: Andi Kleen Date: 15 Jan 2002 19:39:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Martin Eriksson"'s message of "Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:50:15 +0100" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.070095 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.95) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Martin Eriksson" writes: > Why do many of you not _attach_ patches instead of merging them with the > mail? It's so much cleaner and easier to have a "xxx-yyy.patch" file > attached to the mail which can be saved in an appropriate directory. Also, > the whitespace is always retained that way. > > OTOH I don't have very deep knowledge of "diff" and "patch", so maybe I have > missed something here... Patches are often saved and applied later. In this case it is useful to have the context of the mail message it was contained in around in the same file, so that you later actually know what you apply if you happen to not memorize it completely. Patch will ignore the mail part so it can be still applied directly. With saved attachments you usually just a patch and no description, or it requires extra effort to save the description too. -Andi