James Keenan via RT wrote:
On Mon Aug 25 13:15:16 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generally recommend attaching patches as files ending in .patch (as
documented in docs/submissions.pod) for the sanity of the patch
monsters.
Well, since it's in the docs, I will withdraw the suggestion.
However, *I* am one of the patch monsters whose sanity you are concerned
with, and I have found that if the file ends in '.patch' I have to tell
my browser/mail client/newsreader what other program to open it with. I
don't have to do that if it ends in '.txt'. All those programs know how
to display '.txt' files.
You have to save the patch to disk before applying it anyway, which
means you can take advantage of text editors that properly
syntax-highlight .patch files (vim++, I'm sure emacs too, and probably
even Eclipse, Komodo, BBEdit...). That's a far more significant
advantage than the ability to view it as a flat-text file in the browser.
Would you accept '*.patch.txt' as a compromise?
Not as an official standard, but I've also never refused to apply a
patch because of the file extension. :)
Allison
