From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-29331-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27149 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2007 17:24:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 27087 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2007 17:24:52 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:24:46 +0000
Received: from rainbow ([192.168.8.46] RDNS failed) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 	 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:24:43 +0100
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: <teawater@gmail.com>, 	<gdb@sources.redhat.com>
References: <daef60380708100231n2a926967q2f55b9a2194b982d@mail.gmail.com> <u643nfo5s.fsf@gnu.org> <03f801c7db5e$418c21e0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <uy7gje3l5.fsf@gnu.org>
Subject: RE: GDB record target 0.0.1 for GDB-6.6 release (It make GDB support Reversible Debugging)
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:24:00 -0000
Message-ID: <043201c7db73$57d7c930$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <uy7gje3l5.fsf@gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2

On 10 August 2007 17:51, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
>> Cc: <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:53:47 +0100
>> 
>> On 10 August 2007 15:41, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 
>>> I have some comments on the patch.  (Btw, in the future, please send
>>> the patch in the body of the message as text, do not compress and
>>> attach it as a binary attachment, as that makes reviewing the patch
>>> less convenient.)
>> 
>>   Less convenient than having to manually unwrap wrapped lines before you
>> can apply it?
> 
> No one said that sending patches as regular text necessarily implies
> the lines will be wrapped.

  Well, if the sender switches off wrapping, you'll find that the patch is
easy to read but the entire body of the sender's message comes out as one long
line.

>> I find that sending as an uncompressed plaintext attachment gets
>> the best of both worlds.
> 
> I only want a single world: the one where text can be read without
> jumping through the hoops.

  As far as I know, mailers haven't made anyone "jump through hoops" to read
attachments since about 1981...


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....