[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Why not "attach" patches?

    On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Christoph Rohland wrote:
    > On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > 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),
    > So text/plain is ok for you?

    text/plain is fine - it has all the properties a non-attachment has.

    > How about multiple cummulative patches attached to one mail?

    Absolutely not. When I open my mail-client, and somebody has sent me 20
    patches, I want to _see_ 20 mails. That way I can select from them, and
    the mailreader clearly indicates which ones I've read, etc etc.

    Multiple attachements have no advantages, and have several disadvantages.

    > This is the case where I hate your strategy about attachments: You
    > want to have separate patches (what I clearly understand), but you do
    > not want attachments. That's fine most of the time as long as I send
    > it to you privately, but to public lists too many people miss the
    > important steps.

    Sending large patches to public lists tends to be a mistake in the first
    place. It just irritates the people who pay for bandwidth and do not want
    to apply patches off the list.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.029 / U:5.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site