From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261385AbVEDSwz (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 May 2005 14:52:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261388AbVEDSwz (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 May 2005 14:52:55 -0400 Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:27652 "EHLO khc.piap.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261385AbVEDSwv (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 May 2005 14:52:51 -0400 To: Dave Hansen Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] update SubmittingPatches to clarify attachment policy References: <20050504170156.87F67CE5@kernel.beaverton.ibm.com> <200505041716.j44HGPbV016851@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1115227516.22718.4.camel@localhost> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 20:52:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1115227516.22718.4.camel@localhost> (Dave Hansen's message of "Wed, 04 May 2005 10:25:16 -0700") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dave Hansen writes: > +Many maintainers will now accept patches submitted to them as > +text/plain attachments. Many mailers quote these attachements in the > +same way that they do for inline patches. But, some maintainers still > +prefer inlines and they are certainly the safest bet. There is MIME "Content-Disposition: inline". Personally I think it's at least as good as plain text - it's MIME attachment (you can extract automatically, you have well-defined patch boundaries, original file name etc.) _and_ mail readers are supposed to (and do) display such attachments as normal message parts. The message is readable with MIME-unaware readers (scripts etc.) as well. Such attachment (raw message data) looks like: From: xxx@yyy To: lkml MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" --=-=-= Normal message text etc. --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-patch Content-Disposition: inline; filename=xxx.patch --- linux-2.6/xxx.c 25 May 2003 22:13:37 +++ linux-2.6/xxx.c 25 May 2003 22:13:38 the rest of patch text --=-=-=-- > +code. If you must use an attachment, Nearly no one "must" use attachments. I can only think of people using broken mail servers ("corporate servers"). > verify that it has no > +Content-Type-Encoding. Content-Transfer-Encoding. I'd say "verify that it's binary-encoded - quoted-printable and base64 encodings are not permitted". I.e., it's perfectly fine to specify "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" (or "8bit" or possibly "binary", though I don't exactly know the difference between "8bit" and "binary"). > A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more > +time to process, decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached > +change being accepted. I don't think so. Badly formatted MIME attachments, sure. I'd be surprised if Linus applies them at all. > Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask > -you to re-send them using MIME. > +you to re-send them compressed or using other MIME encodings. Rather: "... someone may ask you to re-send them as properly encoded MIME attachments". In fact I'd encourage using binary-encoded inlined MIME attachments at all times, with non-MIME 7bit or 8bit plain text being accepted as secondary format. -- Krzysztof Halasa