patchbomb inline attachments

[Brendan Cully]

On Thursday, 29 April 2010 at 23:30, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
> Brendan Cully wrote, On 04/29/2010 10:55 PM:
> >On Thursday, 29 April 2010 at 15:44, Matt Mackall wrote:
> >>Huh. So there's this sad situation:
> >>
> >>  -a --attach       send patches as attachments
> >>  -i --inline       send patches as inline attachments
> >>
> >>An "inline attachment" is a regular attachment that has a
> >>Content-Dispostion of "inline". And that's an entirely different thing
> >>from just sticking a patch in the body of a message.
> >>
> >>I'm not even sure why we'd ever want to send a patch as an attachment
> >>that wasn't an inlined attachment. Perhaps we should merge the two
> >>options and deprecate the -i switch.
> >Patches that go through xen-devel have to _not_ be inlined, because
> >Exchange mangles whitespace on them otherwise. I rely on being able to
> >send these.
> 
> Do they require patches to not be inline-in-body but attachments, or
> do they require attachments that don't have Content-Dispostion
> "inline"?

The latter. It surprised me too.

> I contributed to a git-hosted project where they couldn't figure out
> how to handle inline-in-body patches, so I needed the possibility of
> sending attachments too. I don't think the attachment type matters.
> (Fortunately hg-git and push access saved me.)