Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
>> one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
>> attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already
>> downloadable separately).
> Are you really sure about that? My recent JSON patch is at
> I don't see any download link for the patch there, yet my mailer set the
> attachment type to text/x-patch, not text/plain.
Yeah, AFAICT the archives treat text/x-patch the same as text/plain.
I tend to send stuff that way if I mean it primarily to be read in the
email. If I'm thinking people will download and apply it, it's better
to gzip the patch and pick a mime type appropriate to that, because that
makes it much easier to pull the patch off the archives at need, at the
cost that you can't just eyeball it in your mail reader.
Anyway, I agree with the general tenor of this thread that it'd be nice
to reduce the impedance mismatches a bit. Don't have any great ideas
about specific ways to do that.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marti Raudsepp||Date: 2012-01-17 17:35:51|
|Subject: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01)|
|Previous:||From: Matteo Beccati||Date: 2012-01-17 17:22:12|
|Subject: Re: automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)|