Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I don't trust filterdiff one bit :-(
> For any particular reason, or just natural skepticism?
IIRC it was demonstrated to be broken the last time it was proposed
as a solution to our problems. Maybe it's been fixed since then, but
I don't have any confidence in it, since evidently it's not been stress
tested very hard.
> I believe there have been some wild-eyed claims tossed around in this
> space previously that unified diffs don't provide all the same
> information as context diffs, which is flatly false.
No, the gripe has always been just that they're less readable for
nontrivial changes.
> The not-so-nice thing about unified diffs is that when there is a huge
> hunk of code that's changed, there are probably by chance a few
> identical lines buried in there, like " }", so the + and - lines
> end up mixed together in a way that wouldn't happen in a context diff
> (which would turn the whole thing into two big "!" sections). It's no
> problem for a machine to understand this, but it's hard to read for a
> human being.
Exactly. Even without identical lines, I find that the old and new code
gets intermixed in easily-confusing ways. -u is very readable for
isolated single-line changes, but for anything larger, not so much.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
