Re: [PATCH/POLL] git-format-patch: the default suffix is now .patch, not .txt

From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2007, 08:18 UTC
Message-ID: <81b0412b0701180018i208e4158k2dd3e9ecdfa79b13@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070118080613.GE23124@spearce.org>

On 1/18/07, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, how many mail clients know that .patch is actually
> > a text and not application/binary? It'll make patch
> > reviewing harder for some (not sure if I'd like a review
> > of such a person, though).
>
> Patches intended for review should be sent inline, not attached.

There is again this word "should". Are you sure it has any _real_ meaning? For a person who knows about revision management from something like Perforce?

> Thus the file extension has no impact on how the mail client should
> treat it.

He will attach it. It's typical for outlook users. He will even put it in HTML-formatted mail, because that's the default format for outlook messages.

> Don't count people out just because they cannot read a *.patch file

I don't. I just know how hard is it to explain what source is and why it is better than a "C++ file".

> All constructive feedback is valuable, no matter its source.  Of
> course I did qualify that with "constructive"... ;-)

It is. That's why I did try to explain it to some. That's how I know about explaining. I'm very pessimistic now, sorry.