Hi Greg,
Sometimes I'm tempted to send patches as .eml attachments (just like in
error messages sent by mail servers to me). Is patch submission by
aforementioned way accepted? If not, why?
Thanks.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 04:47:31PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Sometimes I'm tempted to send patches as .eml attachments (just like in
> error messages sent by mail servers to me). Is patch submission by
> aforementioned way accepted?
No.
> If not, why?
Why would they be?
Attachments don't usually work as you can not reply to them and comment
on the contents, right? Try it yourself and see.
Also, .eml is an odd standard, what's wrong with text?
thanks,
greg k-h
On 4/28/24 16:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 04:47:31PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Sometimes I'm tempted to send patches as .eml attachments (just like in
>> error messages sent by mail servers to me). Is patch submission by
>> aforementioned way accepted?
>
> No.
>
>> If not, why?
>
> Why would they be?
>
> Attachments don't usually work as you can not reply to them and comment
> on the contents, right? Try it yourself and see.
>
OK.
I experimented this by sending dummy patches to myself, as attachment.
I replied to the patch using mutt and thunderbird. In mutt, the patch
contents was quoted, whereas in the latter, it was missing. Hence,
email clients are inconsistent on handling patch attachments.
> Also, .eml is an odd standard, what's wrong with text?
>
It's also text format like mbox or git-format-patch(1) patches,
though.
Thanks.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 06:10:16PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 4/28/24 16:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 04:47:31PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> Sometimes I'm tempted to send patches as .eml attachments (just like in
> >> error messages sent by mail servers to me). Is patch submission by
> >> aforementioned way accepted?
> >
> > No.
> >
> >> If not, why?
> >
> > Why would they be?
> >
> > Attachments don't usually work as you can not reply to them and comment
> > on the contents, right? Try it yourself and see.
> >
>
> OK.
>
> I experimented this by sending dummy patches to myself, as attachment.
> I replied to the patch using mutt and thunderbird. In mutt, the patch
> contents was quoted, whereas in the latter, it was missing. Hence,
> email clients are inconsistent on handling patch attachments.
That is true, which is why we say "do not attach patches". It's as if
people assume we are new at this whole thing...
greg k-h
On 4/28/24 18:18, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 06:10:16PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> On 4/28/24 16:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> Why would they be?
>>>
>>> Attachments don't usually work as you can not reply to them and comment
>>> on the contents, right? Try it yourself and see.
>>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> I experimented this by sending dummy patches to myself, as attachment.
>> I replied to the patch using mutt and thunderbird. In mutt, the patch
>> contents was quoted, whereas in the latter, it was missing. Hence,
>> email clients are inconsistent on handling patch attachments.
>
> That is true, which is why we say "do not attach patches". It's as if
> people assume we are new at this whole thing...
>
OK, thanks!
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara