Re: FEATURE REQUEST: git-format-path: Add option to encode patch content

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Apr 30, 2007, 22:18 UTC
Message-ID: <7vtzuxbj5h.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <873b2ho73n.wl%cworth@cworth.org>

Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:56:46 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> ...
>>                                      I would like to know if
>> you have or do not have problem with base64 ones, as that is
>> what indicates your opinion on making --attach unconditionally
>> do base64 which was the suggestion made in the thread.
>
> I definitely have a problem with base64-encoded patches.

Thanks, and I agree with everything you said why base64 is inconvenient. So _if_ somebody does an enhancement to do base64, it needs to be a separate option.

Honestly speaking, though, I think that kind of "attachment" should be left to MUA, not format-patch. If somebody knows his MUA has a tendency to corrupt in-line text, tell the MUA to attach the format-patch output stored in the filesystem as an application/octet-stream attachment. MUA may or may not do base64 or QP but at that point the only thing the user cares about is a byte-for-byte faithful reproduction at the recipient's end, and he does not worry a whit about readability), so either base64 or QP would suffice. And the format-patch does not have to care.