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.