Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] ColBorder has been moved to the enum with ColFg and ColBg.

From: Eric Pruitt <eric.pruitt_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:38:21 -0700

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:17:25PM +0100, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> Still sounds to me like having patches as attachments just causes me to
> have to change my default configuration though.

Change the world or change your configuration: the choice is yours! By
adding a handful of bytes to your Mutt files, you can get the patches to
effectively be inlined regardless of how the sender actually sent them.

> What is the advantage of attaching the patches instead of just sending
> them inline, I wonder.

I think a large part of what people prefer will depend on how they
access the mailing list. I imagine it's easier for most common mail
clients to deal with inline patches when it comes to reviewing &
commenting, but I prefer attachments because:

- They're easier for me to send. The various mail functions that Git
  provides make some assumptions about one's MUA that, IMO, make it
  tedious (albeit scriptable) to use them with Mutt for **sending**
  patches. If the machine I'm using isn't configured to send emails,
  it's easier for me to move a patch / diff file between machines rather
  than a Git-generated email that I'll have to re-edit to fix things
  like the "From:" header.
- I've seen inline patches get munged by MUAs. I have personally sent
  some broken patches because I forgot to disable automatic text
  wrapping of an email with an inline patch.
- When people send batches of related patches, sending a single email
  means that all of the patches will be immediately accessible whereas
  separate emails might not arrive in close proximity to one another or
  even in order because of things like rate limit and spam
  countermeasures.

Eric
Received on Thu Mar 15 2018 - 22:38:21 CET