Marko Kreen wrote:
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.

I would rather stick generally to one style. It's a question of whose convenience prevails, the author's or the reviewer's. I think it should be the reviewer's, and since Tom reviews far more than anyone else his voice accordingly matters most.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to