Hi,
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:12:17PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > In this day and age of rich-text capable mailers, restricting postings
> > to be text-only seems quaint and antiquated. Are there any hard
> > requirements that force u
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:28:39AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> My main concern is losing valid content because of this limitation.
>>
>
> Your only concern is to send email with your android gmail.
>
> You also need to learn to trim the CC l
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability
> is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a reason for us to change
> our policy.
Amen.
Rich texts in technical conversations where people people use
various
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:28:39AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> My main concern is losing valid content because of this limitation.
>
Your only concern is to send email with your android gmail.
You also need to learn to trim the CC line
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Quoting Richard Biener :
>
>> (though doesn't save much space). One file per mail is then convenient
>> for
>> review anyway.
>
>
> That would be 84 mails then just for the added files.
> And if the testsuite was bigger, that figure would o
Quoting Richard Biener :
(though doesn't save much space). One file per mail is then convenient for
review anyway.
That would be 84 mails then just for the added files.
And if the testsuite was bigger, that figure would only get larger.
Is that really the preferred way to do this?
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Quoting Richard Biener :
>
>> That said, filtering any non text/plain mail into spam keeps me off most
>> spam. Thus be warned when you try to get patches in non text/plain
>> sent to me ;)
>
>
> Should I uuencode new port submissions?
> Ex
Quoting Richard Biener :
That said, filtering any non text/plain mail into spam keeps me off most
spam. Thus be warned when you try to get patches in non text/plain
sent to me ;)
Should I uuencode new port submissions?
Expressing addition of several score files as a 'patch' is not always an
o
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> That said, filtering any non text/plain mail into spam keeps me off most
> spam. Thus be warned when you try to get patches in non text/plain
> sent to me ;)
It would be OK for me if the mailing list software we use stripped the
text/html
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 11/24/2012 12:59 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>>
2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability
is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>> 2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability
>> is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a reason for us to change
>> our policy.
>
>
> Surely there are altenrative email client for Android that have plain
> t
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Richard Kenner
> wrote:
>>> It's just that an increasing number of mail agents are configured by
>>> default to send rich-text.
>>
>> And people who know enough about computing to work on compilers don't kno
Sorry -
I wasn't really interested in debating this any more than one should
debate the effects of having your head squashed if you hang your head
over the rail when the IRT is coming.
It just gets squashed.
BTW, as well as learning to use text for email, also please learn to
trim the CC list..
Sorry dude, I don't engage in substantive conversation with abusive trolls.
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:58:33PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> > Diego Novillo writes:
>> >
>> >> Su
>
> Yes, we should expect users to change, instead of keeping up with users.
No - we shouldn't punish developers by making them use stupid mime
translational servces that breaks the replying mechanism in EMACS and
mutt because they are stupidly try to post to a tech mailing list on
their androi
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:58:33PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Diego Novillo writes:
> >
> >> Sure. First I wanted to find out whether this requirement is just a
> >> technical limitation with our mailing list software.
> >
> > It i
On 11/24/2012 1:13 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The official gmail app, which obviously integrates well with gmail and
is good in most other ways, won't send non-html mails.
There seem to be a variety of alternatives
http://www.tested.com/tech/android/3110-the-best-alternative-android-apps-to-
On 24 November 2012 17:47, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>> 2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability
>> is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a reason for us to change
>> our policy.
>
>
> Surely there are altenrative email client for Android that have plain
> text cap
Hi -
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:58:33PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> [...]
> I'd love to see data on this. As others have pointed out, almost
> every other open source project accepts html email. [...]
> Do you have reason to believe our existing spam detection solution
> will start to fail mass
On 11/24/2012 12:59 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability
is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a reason for us to change
our policy.
Surely there are altenrative email c
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>> 2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability
>> is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a reason for us to change
>> our policy.
>
>
> Surely there are altenrative email client for Android that have plain
>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Diego Novillo writes:
>
>> Sure. First I wanted to find out whether this requirement is just a
>> technical limitation with our mailing list software.
>
> It is not a technical limitation. We explicitly reject HTML e-mail. We
> could
2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability
is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a reason for us to change
our policy.
Surely there are altenrative email client for Android that have plain
text capability???
Diego Novillo writes:
> Sure. First I wanted to find out whether this requirement is just a
> technical limitation with our mailing list software.
It is not a technical limitation. We explicitly reject HTML e-mail. We
could accept it.
As Jonathan pointed out, accepting HTML e-mail and then d
On 24 November 2012 00:40, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>
> I am regular reader of several mailing lists, some of which (such as this
> one) require plain text, and some (like cdt-dev) which allow rich text.
>
> My experience has been that the formatting of messages on plain-text
> lists is consistent acros
> > Similarly for text-only vs. "rich text". You may argue that there's no
> > compatibility issue, but I disagree. As was pointed out upthread, when
> > people use "rich text", they often start to use colors or other mechanisms
> > to express themselves, which can now be dependent on the renderin
For me the most annoying thing about HTML burdened emails
is idiots who choose totally inappropriate fonts, that make
their stuff really hard to read. I choose a font for plain
text emails that is just right on my screen etc. I do NOT
want it overridden. And as for people who use color etc,
well o
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
>> It's just that an increasing number of mail agents are configured by
>> default to send rich-text.
>
> And people who know enough about computing to work on compilers don't know
> how to change the default on their MUA? That seems like a p
> It's just that an increasing number of mail agents are configured by
> default to send rich-text.
And people who know enough about computing to work on compilers don't know
how to change the default on their MUA? That seems like a poor reason to
make such a change.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
> Similarly for text-only vs. "rich text". You may argue that there's no
> compatibility issue, but I disagree. As was pointed out upthread, when
> people use "rich text", they often start to use colors or other mechanisms
> to express them
> It's not that they *cannot* follow an arbitrary rule. It is that the
> rule bears no relation with the quality of their work, so they see it
> as an artificial roadblock which merely irritates them. Add enough
> irritants and they may decide to take their contributions elsewhere.
Coding standa
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
>> And restricting writers, may result in the loss of contributors in the
>> medium/long term.
>
> We have a lot of things we do that "restrict" writers. We insist that
> patches be tested. We insist that coding standards be followed. We
>
> And restricting writers, may result in the loss of contributors in the
> medium/long term.
We have a lot of things we do that "restrict" writers. We insist that
patches be tested. We insist that coding standards be followed. We
insist that good documentation practices be applied. We don't all
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 08:12 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> In this day and age of rich-text capable mailers, restricting postings
>>> to be text-only seems quaint and antiquated. Are there any
On 11/23/2012 08:12 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> In this day and age of rich-text capable mailers, restricting postings
>> to be text-only seems quaint and antiquated. Are there any hard
>> requirements that force us to only accept plain tex
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 03:35:57PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> >> >
> >> > incorrect accessment
> >>
> >> I can't parse this.
> >
> >
> > Maybe HTML markup can help you.
> >
> >
> > Stupid conversation
>
> No need to respond in such an a
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
>> >
>> > incorrect accessment
>>
>> I can't parse this.
>
>
> Maybe HTML markup can help you.
>
>
> Stupid conversation
No need to respond in such an arrogant and condescending manner. I do
not understand what "incorrect accessment" means.
Why are you using google for your mail? Can't you get a real mail
client and a real mail access? Or maybe you work for google, in which
I can undersand it.
> >
> > incorrect accessment
>
> I can't parse this.
Maybe HTML markup can help you.
Stupid conversation
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> In this day and age of rich-text capable mailers, restricting postings
>> to be text-only seems quaint and antiquated. Are there any hard
>> requirements that force us to only accept
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:12:17PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> > In this day and age of rich-text capable mailers, restricting postings
>> > to be text-only seems quaint and antiquat
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:12:17PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > In this day and age of rich-text capable mailers, restricting postings
> > to be text-only seems quaint and antiquated. Are there any hard
> > requirements that force us to
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> In this day and age of rich-text capable mailers, restricting postings
> to be text-only seems quaint and antiquated. Are there any hard
> requirements that force us to only accept plain text messages?
I think it is a bad idea to accept no
43 matches
Mail list logo
