From: Alex Riesen Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:18:47 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH/POLL] git-format-patch: the default suffix is now .patch, not .txt Message-ID: <81b0412b0701180018i208e4158k2dd3e9ecdfa79b13@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070118080613.GE23124@spearce.org> On 1/18/07, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Alex Riesen 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.