Re: If make check fails

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep  3, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 09:34:24AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> >>>>> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
Gary> The call to mutt at the end is a bit of a wart, but I know of no
Gary> better way to add mime attachments from the command line
Gary> (patches in the body of a mail seem to get mangled).
>> 
>> Please, don't send them attached.  This is what we ask our
>> contributors because they don't apply the patches themselves, and we
>> need to preserve the exact contents, but otherwise I much prefer
>> having the patch in the mail body.

> Fair enough.  I'll add another option to include the patch rather than
> attach it.  But I'll leave the default as it is incase the script
> escapes into user land somehow ;-)

I, OTOH, prefer to have patches as inline MIME parts.  They're not
attachments, but the fact that they're MIME parts makes it possible
for me to save them individually, apply them without having to select
them by hand (and without the risk of missing a trailing line
containing just whitespace), etc.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me