This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: patches inline in mail
- From: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml at dif dot dk>
- To: George Anzinger <george at mvista dot com>
- Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter at sgi dot com>,Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>, johnstul at us dot ibm dot com,Ulrich dot Windl at rz dot uni-regensburg dot de, jbarnes at sgi dot com,linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:04:23 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: patches inline in mail
- References: <B6E8046E1E28D34EB815A11AC8CA312902CD3264@mtv-atc-605e--n.corp.sgi.com><Pine.LNX.4.58.0409240508560.5706@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com><4154F349.1090408@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409242253080.13099@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com><41550B77.1070604@redhat.com> <B6E8046E1E28D34EB815A11AC8CA312902CD327E@mtv-atc-605e--n.corp.sgi.com><Pine.LNX.4.58.0409271344220.32308@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com><4159B920.3040802@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409282017340.18604@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com><415AF4C3.1040808@mvista.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409291054230.25276@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com><415B0C9E.5060000@mvista.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0409292143050.2744@dragon.hygekrogen.localhost><415B4FEE.2000209@mvista.com>
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, George Anzinger wrote:
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:14:38 -0700
> From: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>
> To: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
> johnstul@us.ibm.com, Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de, jbarnes@sgi.com,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: patches inline in mail
>
> Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > Unrelated to the CLOCK_PROCESS/THREAD_CPUTIME_ID discussion, just wanted to
> > comment on the 'patches inline vs attached' bit.
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, George Anzinger wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Please, when sending patches, attach them. This avoids problems with
> > > > > mailers,
> > > > > on both ends, messing with white space. They still appear in line, at
> > > > > least in
> > > > > some mailers (mozilla in my case).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The custom on lkml, for Linus and Andrew is to send them inline. I also
> > > > prefer them inline. Will try to remember sending attachments when
> > > > sending a
> > > > patch to you.
> > >
> > > I think they WILL be inline as well as attached if you attach them. The
> > > difference is that in both presentations neither mailer will mess with
> > > white
> > > space. This means that long lines will not be wrapped and tabs vs space
> > > will
> > > not be changed.
> > >
> >
> > Not all mailers show attachments inline. Mailers that do usually depend on
> > the mimetype of the attachment when choosing to show inline or not. pine (my
> > personal favorite) show attachments with a text/plain and similar mime-type
> > inline, but a not all mailers use that (I see a lot of attached patches on
> > lkml that don't show inline, and that's somewhat annoying).
>
> So we should make sure that the mailer uses the right mime-type. I suppose
> that depends on the mailer?
> >
> > It's also harder to reply and comment on bits of a patch when your mailer
> > does not include attachments inline in a reply (even if it did show them
> > inline while reading the mail).
> > Having to save the patch, open it in a text editor and then cut'n'paste bits
> > of it into the reply mail is a pain. Same goes for having to save & open it
> > in order to read it in the first place.
>
> We agree. Still, I have been bitten too many times by misshandled white space
> to trust pure inlineing. Likewise on picking it up one would usually past it
> in the mail (I suppose) where as the attachment is through the mailer and less
> prone to missing a character.
>
When I include patches inline in mails I use pine's "Read File"
functionality. Pressing CTRL+R and then specifying a filename causes pine
to read the file and place it inline exactely as read from the file. So no
whitespace damage by cut'n'paste.
I don't know, but I would suspect that other mailers would have similar
functionality.??
> The best answer, I think, is attachments that show as inline AND stay that way
> on the reply.
>
That would be just as fine as plain inline, but I think it'll be difficult
to find a way to do that that works universally with all mailers.
--
Jesper Juhl