Oddly enough, I have the exact opposite attitude...
I will barely accept inlined patches (to the usb-storage driver, which
I maintain). About 85-90% of the inlined patches I get won't apply
cleanly because of whitespace mangling. MIME-attachments (of type
text/plain) seem to have a _much_ higher success rate.
Yes, the transition was painful. Heck, it still is. Some versions of
Outlook still don't understand the RFC-compliant way of attaching a
digital signature to a message -- I get complaints from people every
so often that all they see is a blank message with two attachments,
one of which is the "message" itself, and the other is my signature.
Matthew D. Dharm Senior Software Designer
Momentum Computer Inc. 1815 Aston Ave. Suite 107
(760) 431-8663 X-115 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7310
Momentum Works For You www.momenco.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Ralf Baechle
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:06 AM
> To: Maciej W. Rozycki
> Cc: Guido Guenther; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: ip22 watchdog timer
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 03:41:49PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > > How true. MIME - broken solution for a broken design
> ;) More serious,
> > Why broken? It's not broken for what it was invented
> to, i.e. for
> > passing unsafe characters via SMTP. Source patches do
> not qualify as
> > containing such.
> The transition time from pre-MIME to MIME was pretty
> painful. If you'd
> have gone through the same pains that I did during the MIME
> you'd probably understand why I call it a broken fix for a
> broken system.
> Fortunately now that the childhood problems have been
> solved MIME looks
> alot saner but still I prefer plaintext for patches.