Re[2]: Future blog

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


I remember you (or someone else) had pointed me about of inconvenience of reading my patches in the form they were attached and I had promised to use ".diff.txt" file extension but forgot about it after a long delay. (there is such problem in, say, mailing list where I frequently send my patches to; besides, I have no problem in opening the attachment in the link below in Firefox which I use). I apologies for the inconvenience and I'll try to keep in my mind that it's better to use .txt extension when posting to this ML.

PS. Thank you, Andrew, for joining the discussion and for the patches reviewing.

Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:45:04 +0200 Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>:

> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure if this is all of it but it's a start anyway:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Ah, yes, these were the patches that were sent hex encoded with a
> > MIME type of application/octet-stream.  Needless to say these didn't
> > get reviewed.
> Right.
> > I'll have a look, but IMO it is unreaslistic to expect a reviewer to
> > save an attachment and open it in an external editor.  And I did point
> > this out at the time.
> I completely agree. I have Ivan's patches locally and I'm planning to
> go through them and resend them to the list unless he beats me to it.
> Pekka

[Linux Kernel]     [Linux Cryptography]     [Fedora]     [Fedora Directory]     [Red Hat Development]

  Powered by Linux