On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:58:12PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > The bit I quoted is the main example, you're including random mail > > headers in the body of the mail. > They're not mail headers per-say, they're `git format-patch` headers. > I thought this was acceptable for single patches, hence why I've done > it lots of times and had no complaints (until now). > If there are some changes required in a single patch, I usually fix > it up, create a patch with `git format-patch` and send it as a reply > to either the original patch in the series or the mail containing the > suggestion. If this is wrong please educate me as I thought this was If you're going to do this send the patch properly in the same way patches are normally sent. Take a step back and think about this for a minute - why would it be a good idea to send these incremental patches in a different format which requires the person applying the patch to hand edit things to strip out the noise? > acceptable, as I thought it would be less pain than sending the > entire patch-set again for just one change? It makes it harder to work out which versions of things to apply and causes issues for tools when doing things like applying from a mailbox.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
