Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 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.
>> We bounce them back to the author pretty m uch every time with "context
>> diff please".
> We have, and will continue to, bounce patches that arrive as whole files
> or no-context-lines patches.  But I know we've taken unidiffs without
> complaint.  Personally, if I have to read one that's more than isolated
> one-line changes, I apply it locally and then use "cvs diff -c" to get a
> version I can read ... which makes unidiff only a minor annoyance *as
> long as it applies cleanly*.  If it doesn't then it's a PITA ...

You can use "filterdiff -v --format=context". Or emacs's built in
command to do the conversion.

Because it's easy to convert from one to another, I think the unified
vs. context diff issue is a non-issue.

  Heikki Linnakangas

---------------------------(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