On October 9, 2003 10:54 pm, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On October 9, 2003 09:58 pm, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
look/feel/use, like wine-cvs. I would have personally thought that
attachments make more sense, because separating patches from text can
be ambiguous and it's not as easy to send multiple
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
The submission and processing of patches is not something totally alien to
me, though the specific history and conclusions reached w.r.t. wine mail
lists is. That said, you needn't crusade the inlining argument by
dispatching me to the list archives
FWIW: I'm away soon for a few days, so you'll have to continue this
without me (a fact which is no doubt to your infinite relief :-).
On October 10, 2003 11:27 am, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
[snip]
I haven't dispatched you to the archives to be rude, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Dimi,
I'm deeply sorry about that and I understand your frustrations for
I have frustrations of my own using my mail client.
The problem is that I have no other choice but to use Notes as a mail
client for external emails at my company and Notes really screws up
As an alternative, if welcome on the list, we can zip/bzip the patch,
this way they wont be mangled by Notes.
Can't you just call your diffs something.txt and attach them?
=
Sylvain Petreolle (spetreolle_at_users_dot_sourceforge_dot_net)
ICQ #170597259
Say NO to software patents
On October 9, 2003 08:11 am, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
As an alternative, if welcome on the list, we can zip/bzip the patch,
this way they wont be mangled by Notes.
No, this is most definitely not welcome on the list...
--
Dimi.
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
Couldn't the wine-patches list server simply pull the emails apart and
reconstruct them according to some simple rules? I'm no Perl hacker, but
I'm sure this could be stitched together easily by someone who is.
I think I can do that. What I suggest:
Attachments must be
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I think I can do that. What I suggest:
Attachments must be either .diff or .patch. If you want, they can be bz2
or gz compressed. Mime type is disregarded. Also, the mail must be
non-HTML (or, at least, must have a text only component). Emails that
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I think I can do that. What I suggest:
Attachments must be either .diff or .patch. If you want, they can be bz2
or gz compressed. Mime type is disregarded. Also, the mail must be
non-HTML (or, at least, must have a text only
Glad to hear someone is taking this up! :-)
As for the approach, I think if you do take the approach of letting
unmatched emails through, you should perhaps mangle the subject or
prepend some template text to the body of the email. Otherwise it's less
clear that someone will send a polite note
On October 9, 2003 09:58 pm, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
look/feel/use, like wine-cvs. I would have personally thought that
attachments make more sense, because separating patches from text can be
ambiguous and it's not as easy to send multiple patches (eg. when
submitting two alternative patches?)
11 matches
Mail list logo
