Anything wrong with my patch from 16.10. about w32x86 and win40 creation?

[Pat]

I usually use the archives for viewing patches, sometimes the patches 
are archived separately to the email.
 
Markus' patch is here:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-October/045288.html

[Juan Lang]

> I usually use the archives for viewing patches, sometimes the patches
> are archived separately to the email.
>
> Markus' patch is here:
> http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-October/045288.html

Right, that one had formatting characters in it due to the encoding.
Patches need to be either inline as text or attached as plaintext to
get looked at.
--Juan

Anything wrong with my patch from 16.10. about w32x86 and win40creation?

[Markus Gömmel]

So it's really ok to create a patch with only the patch as text without any 
attachment?

Markus

"Juan Lang" <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:3a768c550710230713ub9d8911s282eac8759b7e801(a)mail.gmail.com...
> > I usually use the archives for viewing patches, sometimes the patches
> > are archived separately to the email.
> >
> > Markus' patch is here:
> > http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-October/045288.html
>
> Right, that one had formatting characters in it due to the encoding.
> Patches need to be either inline as text or attached as plaintext to
> get looked at.
> --Juan

Anything wrong with my patch from 16.10. about w32x86 and win40creation?

[Juan Lang]

> So it's really ok to create a patch with only the patch as text without any
> attachment?

At one point that was the preferred way.  I don't know whether it
still is, but I'm sure it's still accepted.  Its risky with some (bad)
mailers, because they may wrap lines, but if you absolutely can't use
a mailer that doesn't screw up attachments, you could try this
instead.

There are plenty of mail programs that don't screw up attachments, by
the way.  You might try one.
--Juan