Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:52:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:52:18 -0500 Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:22462 "EHLO vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:50:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:50:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200201151850.g0FIoXd15188@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why not "attach" patches? In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <005901c19dec$59a89e30$0201a8c0@HOMER> <3C446C77.3000806@evision-ventures.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > In article <3C446C77.3000806@evision-ventures.com>, > Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > >Don't worry - nothign prevents proper attached patches from beeing > >applied - the FAQ is only a bit zealous on this ;-) > > Wrong. > > If I get a patch in an attachment (other than a "Text/PLAIN" type > attachment with no mangling and that pretty much all mail readers and > all tools will see as a normal body), I simply WILL NOT apply it unless > I have strong reason to. I usually wont even bother looking at it, > unless I expected something special from the sender. > > Really. Don't send patches as attachments. Thanks for providing material I can quote :-) I've updated the FAQ entry on this, and also included your sage words: http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s1-14 "So let it be written, so let it be done!" :-) Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/