From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FD6397D23F for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:17:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D8FD6397D23F Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jEisU-0004nO-OO for overseers@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:17:39 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:35169) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jEisU-0004jU-HZ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:17:38 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 02J0HO89023408; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:17:24 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 02J0HLbX023407; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:17:21 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:17:21 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: Jim Wilson , Michael Matz , overseers@gcc.gnu.org, "Frank Ch. Eigler via Gcc" , Overseers mailing list , Alexander Monakov , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Florian Weimer Subject: Re: Not usable email content encoding Message-ID: <20200319001721.GS22482@gate.crashing.org> References: <20200317195158.GC112952@elastic.org> <874kumt0bh.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20200318110109.GA5496@redhat.com> <20200318142239.GF112952@elastic.org> <3af9771e-e577-f2a1-843e-c2b078bfc4ea@t-online.de> <20200318162250.GG112952@elastic.org> <20200318223308.GJ112952@elastic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200318223308.GJ112952@elastic.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 63.228.1.57 X-BeenThere: overseers@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Overseers mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:17:40 -0000 Hi! On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:33:08PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > [...] We need to think about setting up easier ways for people to > > submit patches, rather than trying to fix all of the MUAs and MTAs > > in the world. > > Another related point. We are comingling email as a communication > medium AND a commit transport medium. For the former, as in patch > review / RFC, one may not require a form of the patch that is finally > committable to master, so the exact From: etc. may not matter. But OTOH, it is extremely valuable to review the commit message at the same time as the patch. Which we now *can*, for contributors who follow a more "git-like" workflow. > For the latter, attachments are more bullet-proof. Disregarding binary attachments, which are unworkable with many tools (and which are disallowed on gcc-patches for that reason), is this really true? Do some MUAs (or MTAs) mess up only the first body part they encounter? Or what? Segher