Re: Why not "attach" patches?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Christoph Rohland wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Wrong.
> >
> > If I get a patch in an attachment (other than a "Text/PLAIN" type
> > attachment with no mangling and that pretty much all mail readers
> > and all tools will see as a normal body),
>
> So text/plain is ok for you?

text/plain is fine - it has all the properties a non-attachment has.

> How about multiple cummulative patches attached to one mail?

Absolutely not.  When I open my mail-client, and somebody has sent me 20
patches, I want to _see_ 20 mails. That way I can select from them, and
the mailreader clearly indicates which ones I've read, etc etc.

Multiple attachements have no advantages, and have several disadvantages.

> This is the case where I hate your strategy about attachments: You
> want to have separate patches (what I clearly understand), but you do
> not want attachments. That's fine most of the time as long as I send
> it to you privately, but to public lists too many people miss the
> important steps.

Sending large patches to public lists tends to be a mistake in the first
place. It just irritates the people who pay for bandwidth and do not want
to apply patches off the list.

		Linus