Re: Submitting patches [was: Re: Updated _git completion (not attached)]

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 <ft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
} <http://www.zsh.org/cgi-bin/mla/wilma/workers>.

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.

--