[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:0.097 / U:5.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site