"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> "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.

It seems hard to believe this would be a hard problem to overcome. It's not
like either format contains more or less information than the other. In fact
Emacs's diff-mode can convert between them on the fly.

  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to