Message211009
| Author |
mcepl |
| Recipients |
Rosuav, mcepl, orsenthil, r.david.murray, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2014年02月11日.20:00:31 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1392148818.25448.4.camel@wycliff.ceplovi.cz> |
| In-reply-to |
<1392137553.25.0.262081269384.issue19494@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Tue, 2014年02月11日 at 16:52 +0000, Terry J. Reedy wrote:
> Both patches have an unusual email section at the top that is not
> needed for this tracker, and which I have not seen here before. Is this
> something idiosyncratic to git?
Yes, it is output of git-format-patch(1) ... the advantage against the
plain diff is that it all commit's metadata are included so it can be
fully restored with git-am(1). It is a normal way how commits are sent
around.
> I believe I have read elsewhere the recommendation to use 404 to avoid
> leading info. So taking that into account seems like a good idea. But I
> am not sure what the manual claims about urllib.request and I won't
> make the decision about which versions to apply a patch to.
Well, I would apply it at least to the latest py2k (aka 2.7.7?) and the
latest py3k (3.3.*, 3.4.next).
Matěj |
|