From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:18:50 GMT
Subject: Re: FEATURE REQUEST: git-format-path: Add option to encode patch content
Message-ID: <7vtzuxbj5h.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <873b2ho73n.wl%cworth@cworth.org>

Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> writes:

> 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.