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.
Context diff shows you the old block and new block in its entirety. Unidiff does not, hence the context diff preference. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
