Carl Worth [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
In the community git originates from, even --inline attachments
are frowned upon, let alone --attach multiparts (yes, I am
talking about the kernel list and this list). Nobody who sends
patches over e-mail in communities that have a tradition against
unreadable patches would be using --inline nor --attach anyway,
so making --attach to do base64 would not hurt there.
I know I'm not within the kernel or git party line by saying this, but
I don't have a problem with (non base64) mime-attached patches. My MUA
displays them fine and quotes them when I reply so I can easily review
them.
You strayed into tangent here. You said you do not have a
problem with non base64 attachments. 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.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:56:46 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
You strayed into tangent here. You said you do not have a
problem with non base64 attachments.
Yes, sorry for that.
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.
My MUA does much of exactly what I want with text attachments, (and
stuff I thought most any MUA would do). Specifically, it always
displays text attachments immediately following the message body
itself. And it also quotes text attachments when I reply.
So, for me, a text attachment is almost identical in usability to an
inline patch. And in some ways, it's even more usable. Since my MUA
knows about the boundaries of each attachment, then if there are multiple
patches, I can operate on any one individually (saving or organizing,
or whatever), or even "reply to" an individual attachment by quoting
only that one.
And my MUA does all that even if the text attachment comes with an
"attachment" disposition instead of an "inline" disposition. And I
can't imagine why any MUA would not immediately display a text
attachment, (unless as Linus suggests, it's to encourage user's to get
better exercise by clicking more).
*And* I think my MUA even does all that even if the attachment comes
base64-encoded. But in spite of that, I still am not happy to ever
receive a base64-encoded patch. Because I use things other than my MUA
to look at my mail, (for example, I use grep and sometimes other
indexing tools over my mail, and the base64 encoding ruins them).
So, that's where my preference comes for not wanting base64 encoding,
(even when patches come attached but not inline).
-Carl