| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
[PATCH]format=flowed[PATCH]format=flowedPosted Jun 7, 2007 11:14 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)In reply to: [PATCH]format=flowed by xoddam Parent article: Re: [PATCH -mm] 1/2: MMCONFIG: validate against ACPI motherboard resources Also, often people reply to a patch with inline comments to stuff in it, which requires extra steps to do if the patch is an attachment.
(Log in to post comments)
[PATCH]format=flowed Posted Jun 7, 2007 14:36 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link] Not if the patch is flagged as text/plain, text/x-diff or text/x-patch. Your mail client can then quote it inline for you in replies.
If people send patches marked as binaries, mutt allows you to change the mime-type on the fly. I'm soooo in love with this feature ...
[PATCH]format=flowed Posted Jun 15, 2007 21:50 UTC (Fri) by slamb (guest, #1070) [Link] I don't get this either, but sometimes you have to let the wookie win. git users are very insistent on a particular format (see git's own Documentation/SubmittingPatches), and they merge enough patches that they don't want to mess around with figuring out your format. Whether their format is right or wrong, the consistency makes sense.However, you may be able to just use git send-email when sending patches to these people, rather than alter your MUA's settings. format=flowed does serve a purpose, even if some people don't like the details of how it is done.
|
|
||||||||||||