On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 07:43:33PM -0700, John Nemeth wrote:
>> } Weighing the pros and cons, I think it might be best to create a
>> } bulkier, "rich-text" html-source-changes list.  However, we don't want
>> } to end up exponentially increasing the number of lists we have
>> } according to each feature set people lobby for. ;)
>>
>>      So far only one person has said they don't like the idea.  Whereas
>> a bunch of people both inside and outside of the project has said they
>> do like the idea.  I don't think one naysayer should hold things up.
>
> There is another reason why the current format is important:
> The release engineering tools use the "cvs rdiff" lines of a commit
> message to figure out the necessary CVS commands to handle a
> pullup request.
>
> If the old output format must therefore be part of the e-mail e.g.
> in the ASCII part.

I don't see why this necessitates a change to MIME and hybrid HTML/plain. 
The original suggestion was just to put the link in the email which I 
think is entirely sufficient. What other markup is necessary?

And just to add my vote: I think having a link is an excellent idea, I 
like the coloured side-by-side diff layout rather than reading unified 
diffs.

-- 
Stephen