From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28289 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2011 15:42:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 28934 Received: (qmail 18540 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2011 15:42:07 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at benizi.com designates 64.130.10.15 as permitted sender) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:41:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Benjamin R. Haskell" To: Bart Schaefer cc: Zsh Workers Subject: Re: Submitting patches [was: Re: Updated _git completion (not attached)] In-Reply-To: <110320014708.ZM30833@torch.brasslantern.com> Message-ID: References: <87ei6tex5r.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <8739n3avrm.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <877hbwi2gt.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <8739mki0uj.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <8762rekyj1.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <110320014708.ZM30833@torch.brasslantern.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LNX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Mar 20, 9:05am, Frank Terbeck wrote: > } Subject: Submitting patches [was: Re: Updated _git completion (not attache > } > } Johan Sundstrom wrote: > } > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 14:18, Frank Terbeck wrote: > } >> [Etc/zsh-development-guide] > } > > } > This document doesn't mention it yet, but I assume it's best to } > > submit patches in the message body rather than as attachments? } > > > (Unless, I suppose, they contain binary content.) > } > } I think this is true (simply because it makes commenting patches > } easier). But my answer on the matter is certainly not authoritative. I > } thought I had seen similar comments on the list before; but I couldn't > } find any in a quick search via > } . > > There's a preference for patches in the message body, yes. This is > less important than it used to be because the archive software has > gotten better at inlining text parts. > > One my own pet peeves is the wild inconsistency of mime-type labeling > of attached diffs depending on what email client is used to attach > them. text/x-diff, text/x-patch, application/octet-stream, etc. etc. > No, dammit, they're text/plain. Just say so. Patches are text/* ...except when they're not. Working on a daily basis with a codebase containing inconsistent line endings (CRLF and LF), I see the rationale. application/octet-stream is my preference in that case. It allows the Windows devs to cleanly apply my patches and vice versa. And since it works fine in the consistent-line-endings case, there's no reason to use two different methods. (I do, though, since I use `git` whenever possible; `git svn` at work, where I deal with the aforementioned madness.) -- Best, Ben