Re: [Quilt-dev] Quilt vs gmail

[Jean Delvare]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:23:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM Andreas GrÃnbacher
> <andreas.gruenbacher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Quilt uses those Content-Disposition headers to preserve the patch
> > filenames;  
> 
> That' what I was assuming, but does anybody really care?

Long ago (probably a decade by now, literally) I wrote a shell script
named "rename-patch" for Greg KH which suggests a file name for a patch
received by e-mail. The script first looks for a "filename" attribute
in the Content-Disposition header, and only if not found, falls back to
a heuristic which attempts to generate a good-looking file name based
on the e-mail's subject.

The script used to be published on my kernel.org personal web space,
but went away when kernel.org got hacked, and I never bothered
publishing my few scripts again, sorry about that.

I'm still using that script myself, to name patches generated with "git
show --pretty=email", however there is no Content-Disposition header
there, so the subject heuristic is always used. I don't know if Greg is
still using rename-patch in combination with quilt. Greg?

> If you do things one patch at a time, maybe it's convenient, but then
> it doesn't sound like a huge win either.
> 
> And if you do a patch-series, then it won't work anyway, and you'd be
> saving to an mbox or something. Unless people save patch-series things
> one by one, but at that point "convenient" is no longer an issue.

I'm not sure why it wouldn't work with a series. The name information
is available in each patch of the series, and I know that some kernel
developers have all sorts of shortcuts and macros implemented on top of
their MUA to automate queuing of patches for various testing or
publishing purposes.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support