* Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2006-03-13 09:54]:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:36:48AM -0600, Ryan Harper wrote:
>
> > I'll be sure to use hg export. I thought that inline was preferred rather
> > than attachment so that the patch is readable directly in the mail client.
> > Ideally, the patch shouldn't word-wrap. I can make them attachments if
> > that is the preferred method.
>
> I've heard people say that they prefer inline, but for me, an attachment is by
> far the best option. My client (mutt) can show attachments inline anyway, so
> reading the patch is not a problem, but cut-and-pasting from the terminal
> certainly can be.
Agreed. Now if we can fix the mail clients that send patches as
application/octet-stream with don't get auto-inlined. =)
> Patches do have a tendency to word-wrap. Many developers work right up to the
> 80th column, which means that by the time you add the two characters on the
> left for the diff indicators, you're going to wrap. Furthermore, the headers
> on the diff often include a full path name and a date, and they wrap most of
> the time.
Yep.
> If you want to cover all bases, you can attach it _and_ paste it inline, but
> I'd be happy just with the attachment. There are a few conscientious people
> who do that, but I don't want to put too much burden on those people doing
> good work for Xen, and I certainly wouldn't insist upon it!
OK.
--
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
(512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253
ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home