On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Julius Baxter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Franck Jullien > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2013/8/12 Julius Baxter <[email protected]>: >>> Oh, one more small thing - patches inline next time please ;) >>> >> >> Well, I usually send patch using git send-email however, as it is a >> svn diff I didn't want to paste it in my email. >> I think it's easier to apply if you have it as an attachment. I could do >> both. > > Yeah, true, SVN doesn't have a nice send-email thing like git. I > normally just copy paste it in (although, that did screw up a few > patches, so maybe your method is best, but it's easier to comment on > the patch if it's inline). >
I also think Franck have a point here, it is easier to apply an attached patch intended for SVN and people tend to screw up line wraps, so it's a potential work overhead to force them inline. I still prefer having them inline though, it's easier to read and comment directly in the e-mail than to open a seperate file (to not speak of the cr*p wp8 phone of mine, that asks if I want to "download an app to handle this file format" when I try to open a plain text-file patch attachment). That all said, when *I* apply patches, what I really prefer is to have the patches in git format (even when the main repo is in SVN), commit message all ready, and no work overhead (I'm lazy, I know). I'm using git as a SVN client anyway, so either way it'll end up as a git commit. So, bottom line, my 2 cents on the matter - for patches directed to SVN, (properly wrapped) inline, plain text attachment or git formatted patches are all fine by me. Stefan _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
