[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Why not "attach" patches?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Borg" <>
To: "Martin Eriksson" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Why not "attach" patches?

> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:44:58PM +0100, Martin Eriksson wrote:
> > 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.
> > the whitespace is always retained that way.
> It is nice to have the patch to look at when looking at the mail, and
> it is nice to have the mail to look at when looking at the patch.
> One of the features of patch is that you can save the whole patch
> e-mail to a file and use it directly; patch is willing to skip over
> all the e-mail headers and regular looking text until it sees
> something that looks like a patch. Handy, huh?

Aaah.. DOH! That was just what was lurking in the back of my head, but the
thinking part of the brain didn't quite grasp it. Of course "patch" will
skip "no-patch" text instead of crapping out. Hell, if I'd designed the
"patch" program that behaviour would have been one of the first things to

Sorry for the LKML spam then =) but ain't it nice with one of these
"easy-to-answer" mails from time to time...?

/Martin Eriksson

PS. I really hate OE. Anyone care to recommend THE Windoze Mail+News reader
program, with EXTREME filtering capabilities AND not looking like crap?

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:0.090 / U:4.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site