On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 08:48:02AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> Some people on this list are quite adamant that patches be in-line.
> I was trying to see how my mailer (Thunderbird) handled this. Obviously
> (in hindsight) it screws things up.
> Sending as an attachment works well except some mailers (Not
> Thunderbird) cannot quote attached patches with out jumping through hoops.
> I don't really want to change the mailer that I am using, so I am in a
> bit of a bind WRT submitting patches here.
> FWIW other mailing lists (binutils, gcc) don't seem to have the same
> trouble with attached patches.
Maybe a different style of work there. The submission style we're asking
people to follow here is exactly the same as on linux-kernel, netdev or
other kernel-related lists.
I just asked somebody; this is the answer I got:
I have never had any luck getting mailers to send patches in a way that
no one complained about. In the end, I used this
I found the best way is to have a directory with patches like
001_part1.patch, 002_part2.patch etc with matching explainations in
001_part1.mail 002_part2.mail . I have a script that generates the final
mails and feeds them to sendpatchset
The script may not be what you want but I guess I'll be something like it
to deal with the huge patchsets I'm sometimes fiddling with - like the
452 patch monster right now ...