argh... ;/

argh... ;/

[Mateusz Berezecki]

I accidentaly posted the patches as MIME attachments... its 5:03 am here 
already. Sorry guys.
I can resubmit if you want. I just dont want do that now and not trash 
your mailboxes

Mateusz

Re: argh... ;/

[Daniel Phillips]

On Friday 05 August 2005 13:04, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
> I accidentaly posted the patches as MIME attachments... its 5:03 am here
> already. Sorry guys.
> I can resubmit if you want. I just dont want do that now and not trash
> your mailboxes

Does anybody still care if patches are posted as attachments, particularly for 
review as opposed to submission?

I will make the standard comment about C99 // comments, but add that I use 
them myself to mean "this comment will definitely be gone by the time it gets 
officially submitted", in other words, work in progress.

Heroic work!  And nicely lindented at least.  Some long lines, but in the same 
kinds of places I write them myself.

Only commenting on the form, not substance.  Best of luck.  I have one of 
these things here so when you declare it ready I will try it.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: argh... ;/

[John W. Linville]

On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 02:41:30AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Friday 05 August 2005 13:04, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
> > I accidentaly posted the patches as MIME attachments... its 5:03 am here

> Does anybody still care if patches are posted as attachments, particularly for 
> review as opposed to submission?

Yes.  Opening attachments makes them harder to review.
-- 
John W. Linville
linville@tuxdriver.com

Re: argh... ;/

[Jeff Garzik]

John W. Linville wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 02:41:30AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
>>On Friday 05 August 2005 13:04, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
>>
>>>I accidentaly posted the patches as MIME attachments... its 5:03 am here
> 
> 
>>Does anybody still care if patches are posted as attachments, particularly for 
>>review as opposed to submission?
> 
> 
> Yes.  Opening attachments makes them harder to review.

Strongly agreed.

	Jeff

Re: argh... ;/

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:20:59PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
 > On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 02:41:30AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
 > > On Friday 05 August 2005 13:04, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
 > > > I accidentaly posted the patches as MIME attachments... its 5:03 am here
 > 
 > > Does anybody still care if patches are posted as attachments, particularly for 
 > > review as opposed to submission?
 > 
 > Yes.  Opening attachments makes them harder to review.

Indeed. Replying to such mails ends up looking like..


 >


 ---end quoted text---
 
Which means you need to futz around saving it, reading it back in, deleting it etc..
Saving reviewers keystrokes == good thing.

		Dave

Re: argh... ;/

[Daniel Phillips]

On Saturday 06 August 2005 03:49, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:20:59PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
>  > On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 02:41:30AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>  > > On Friday 05 August 2005 13:04, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
>  > > > I accidentaly posted the patches as MIME attachments... its 5:03 am
>  > > > here
>  > >
>  > > Does anybody still care if patches are posted as attachments,
>  > > particularly for review as opposed to submission?
>  >
>  > Yes.  Opening attachments makes them harder to review.
>
> Indeed. Replying to such mails ends up looking like..

>

Hi, sorry, about the misfired "test" mail... the _real_ issue for me was that 
Kmail was turning tabs into spaces for the longest time, so forcing me either 
to switch mailers (and you know how appealing that is) or send patches as 
attachments.  It's finally fixed, so I'll happily join in with dumping on the 
poor misguided folks who insist on posting their patches as attachments.

Regards,

Daniel "the flexible" Phillips

Re: argh... ;/

[Chris Wedgwood]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:20:59PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:

> Yes.  Opening attachments makes them harder to review.

Lots of people can't inline patches because they are inflicted with
crappy MUAs --- I would much prefer patches as attachments in those
cases versus mangled patches.

Also, I would arguue any sane MUA would make dealing with
reading/openning patches for sensible mime types trivial.

Re: argh... ;/

[Ralf Baechle]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:36:34PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:20:59PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> 
> > Yes.  Opening attachments makes them harder to review.
> 
> Lots of people can't inline patches because they are inflicted with
> crappy MUAs --- I would much prefer patches as attachments in those
> cases versus mangled patches.
> 
> Also, I would arguue any sane MUA would make dealing with
> reading/openning patches for sensible mime types trivial.

That may break quilt import and probably other tools; having to teach quilt
about MIME would be a horribly pointless exercise.

  Ralf

Re: argh... ;/

[John W. Linville]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:36:34PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:20:59PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> 
> > Yes.  Opening attachments makes them harder to review.
> 
> Lots of people can't inline patches because they are inflicted with
> crappy MUAs --- I would much prefer patches as attachments in those
> cases versus mangled patches.

Don't use crappy MUAs?

> Also, I would arguue any sane MUA would make dealing with
> reading/openning patches for sensible mime types trivial.

Any sane MUA wouldn't mangle the patches...

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville@tuxdriver.com

Re: argh... ;/

[Chris Wedgwood]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:44:28AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:

> Don't use crappy MUAs?

Well, plenty of people do.  It's almost the norm so crappy probably
isn't very fair.

It does seem that most if the GUI-base MUAs though by default have
problematic settings (Mozilla, Thunderbird, Evolution, Outlook all
have problems at tims).

People also like to cut & paste patches from xterms or simlar into
MUAs which usually doesn't work very well either.