On 10/24/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one > > obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff > > format as only one accepted. > > Well, that's not a hard-and-fast rule, just a preference. At least for > me, unidiff is vastly harder to read than cdiff for anything much beyond > one-line changes. (For one-liners it's great ;-), but beyond that it > intermixes old and new lines too freely.) That's not merely an > impediment to quick review of the patch; if there's any manual > patch-merging to be done, it significantly increases the risk of error. > > I don't recall that we've rejected any patches lately just because they > were unidiffs. But I'd be sad if a large fraction of incoming patches > started to be unidiffs.
Thanks, maybe the DEVFAQ can be changed that both -u and -c are accepted but -c is preferred. The matter of -c vs. -u is mostly a matter of taste and habit but there is also a technical argument - you can always clean up hard-to-read unidiff with simple /^-/d. But there is no simple way to make hard-to-read context diff readable. -- marko ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
