On 2013-02-25 09:11:27 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > True, but I'm with Heikki: it's a pedantic and unhelpful guideline. > > Then let's change it, drop the preference, and update the documentation.
+1 > > Everyone here who reviews patches regularly knows how to, and probably > > does, convert between those formats with regularity. Making patch > > submitters feel badly because they've used the "wrong" format does not > > advance the goals of the project. > > For my part, I'd rather put the onus on the submitter to submit a > readable patch in the first part than ask the reviewer and anyone else > interested in looking at the patch to fix it. That's even more true > when you consider the archives and reading patches through the web > interface (though downloading the original mail message has gotten > better with the new archive code). Well, the point is that you cannot satisfy enough people with either choice anyway. I for one feel much more comfortable sending patches in a format that I can actually read without thinking too much. Which is the case for unified but definitely not for context. But its different for others. I gave in and made my mailreader convert all patches to unified for reading, that way I don't care about other peoples preferences for one. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
