James bielman wrote:
BTW, I raised the message size limit to (IIRC) 300k or so,
You mentioned that already, however
you should be able to get by without gzipping these patches
is there a particular interest for doing so? I.e. would you or Luis or anybody else appreciate being able to immediately review the patch in the e-mail?
Could there be a problem with CRLF appearing in appended patch files when transmitted from MS-Windows systems and getting into darcs unnoticed?
Regards, Jorg Hohle.
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 08:58 +0100, Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril wrote:
James bielman wrote:
you should be able to get by without gzipping these patches
is there a particular interest for doing so? I.e. would you or Luis or anybody else appreciate being able to immediately review the patch in the e-mail?
Personally I think I'd prefer non-gzipped but attached diffs, as I've had in the past Gnus bindings to apply a darcs patch to a tree (and should probably dig this out and set it up again).
Could there be a problem with CRLF appearing in appended patch files when transmitted from MS-Windows systems and getting into darcs unnoticed?
I'm not a Windows user and I don't know, but I'd guess there would be less risk of this if the patch was attached instead of inline. (But probably depends on the mail software involved and who knows what else---whoever merges patches will probably just need to be sure to check for this).
James
-
Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril -
James Bielman