patches format Re: fndir introspection, site-packages documentation

[Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote on Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:14:47 -0700:
> Aside:  I don't suppose there's any point in again begging people to stop
> attaching patches as "text/x-patch" or "text/x-diff" or other silly MIME
> types that half my email clients say there is no app for, and the other
> half pass to some miscelleneous (wrong) app because of the ".patch" file
> extension, which someone seems to think has something to do with setting
> up network tunnels.
> 
> Grumble.  Text bleeping plain, or just put them in the message body.
> 

I wouldn't advise people to put patches in the body, since most mail
clients auto-wrap and strip leading/trailing whtiespace by default
(which corrupts empty context lines).  Instead, I usually advise people
to attach patches as a file named *.txt.  That filename pattern usually
results in text/plain attachments.

> I suppose I should also rant about email client authors who don't have
> a "text/*" fallback.  Rant rant.  We now return you to your regularly
> scheduled curmudgeonry.