Attachments - Re: [PATCH] winbind id assignment module

[Andrew Bartlett]

"John E. Malmberg" wrote:
> 
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > Mike Gerdts wrote:
> >
> >>I am confused on list etiquette... I thought that samba-technical was
> >>one that everyone complained about attachments 'cause it screwed up the
> >>-digest version.

I think that was just 'samba' BTW.  This list has always taken all this
stuff.

> > They complain about binary attachments, and html mail.  Patches havn't
> > caused an issue as far as I know.  Works best if you can convince your
> > mailer to attach it (as yours did) in a 'text/...' format, as then it
> > doesn't get encoded etc.
> 
> Mozilla .99 is not handling the last attachment well, but that is it's
> problem.  It is continuously trying to reformat it to fit the preview
> window.
> 
> One of the problem with attachments is that many e-mail clients can not
> control what format the attachment is encoded with.
> 
> IMHO, it is better to post inline, and send an attachment as a personal
> E-mail on request.

The problem with inline is that some e-mail programs eat it...

> Isn't there a separate mailing list for patches?

Not a mailing list, but a jitterbug setup.  As I'm not attached to the
automatic e-mail setup on it, I find it a pain to deal with - its just
*much* easier to do stuff on the list, particularly with small patches. 
Larger patches should be a link, possibly to the samba-patches URL.  

> In that case, it is better to discuss the patch and it's implications
> here, but send the patch to the appropriate patch mailing list.  Users
> of that list are probably more likely to use a mail client that deals
> with attachments.

The problem is, the patch and the discussion need to be in the same
place.  Sending the patch (unless very large) to another place just
makes it harder for me to process it.  I refer here to the start of this
thread, where I said 'that looks ok' to the general concepts, because
the patch was a little difficult to find (inside a tarball, on a
website). 

It turned out, when I finally looked at the patch that it needed some
serious work.  Thats why the two need to stay together.

The main use for samba-patches is to keep track of patches over time (so
they don't drop to the bottom of the inbox etc).  The problem with that
is that people have to be reading samba-patches...

> Is there a FAQ entry to point people at?

I'm not sure, but what we do have hasn't been maintained in *years*.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net